“Ultimately truth-crushed earth will rise again, and it has risen in this courtroom, ladies and gentlemen. Send that message. You, you twelve, represent the American people. You are their representatives with respect to justice in this case. They cannot be here. The media will keep the truth from them forever. You represent the people of this land. You must speak for them.”

I am one among many jurists in the jury pool that can be called Respublica.

Had I not volunteered to be State Coordinator for NLA nearly a year ago I would not have been connected to the Respublica court cases. I would not have met Debra and so her work would be unknown to me; she posted Respublica Court case information on this Forum.

Respublica, the word, can be found in The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was the author of the work Common Sense. Common Sense was an amazing pamphlet that spread through the American Colonial Republics lighting the fire of Liberty and leading to The Declaration of Independence.

July 4th, 1776, with that Declaration of Independence, the world of rule by deception was put on notice, as people realized the vital need to defend against the mountains built up by lies, and people bound by fact finding processes, such as trial by jury, could end despotism in favor of a much more interesting, attractive, desirable, peaceful, competitive, cooperative, organized, livelihood in Liberty.

Quote:__________________________
The only forms of government are, the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.

What is called a republic, is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter, or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, res-publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing.

It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

Every government that does not act on the principle of a republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.
_______________________________________

An opinion of one jurist among many jurists is offered. Those who have an interest in one opinion, those attracted to one opinion, those bound by one opinion, can choose one opinion over the opposing opinion.

1.
Crime as a form of government whereby those bound into that interest, that attraction, that opinion, are sharing lies, sharing threats of horrid violence, and sharing the often resort of rioting in the blood of innocent people.

2.
No thanks

_______________________________________________________________

So...

Thomas Paine explains, in 1792, while he was in England, while the false Federalist threw out the Respublica and replaced it with a working bastardized Monarchy, which is a Monarchy born from fraud, threat, rape, and every species of crime born from such usurpation, which is a Monarchy covered up by a false federal front, so unbeknownst to Thomas Paine, while he was in England, as the Respublic was dying off, starved of the truth found in trial by jury, choking on lies, he, Thomas Paine explained what later became known as the Cold War.

In these words:
"Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively."

True law of individuals can be explained in Scripture here:

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Individuals get what they pay for, as individuals employ the God given power of choice, the free will doubled edged sword, the free will double edged pen that is mightier than the free will doubled edged sword, where by individuals who want to be lied to can lie to other people.

Individuals who want to be threatened with horrid violence upon the innocent can threaten horrid violence upon the innocent.

Individuals who want to riot in the blood of the innocent can either roll up their sleeves and start hacking or they can pay other people to do so, as they choose, as individuals.

Individualism became capitalism, if you care to know some of the history of that process, then I care enough to take notes, so I can show you how that happened.

Two sources suffice for now on the trail of individualism and the emerging SIDE of the emerging Cold War whereby capitalism began to take shape:

First from Lysander Spooner (who wrote Trial by Jury and No Treason) is the following capitalistic Essay titled A New System of Paper Currency.

It may be a good idea to understand the differences between money and currency.

Next up in the trail of knowing the linage of individual Respublica sphere of influence, as told by Thomas Paine in Rights of Man, to individualism, to Capitalism, is an obscure American inventor named Josiah Warren.

"Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all."
Equitable Commerce, Josiah Warren, 1852.

So the truth finding machine of Trial by Jury, which takes the deception out of despotism, a vital necessity for Respublica, involves the responsibility of individuals as individuals choose, or fail to choose, the right choices according to Scripture.

Individuals can:

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Individuals can.

Individuals will.

What about the other side of the Cold War?

Now that it is knowable, and traceable, for the individual jurists who can know, who will know, the truth, about how Capitalism became one side in the Cold War battle that currently plagues mankind on planet Earth, the other question concerns the other side of the mountain of lies that began to mount when the criminals retook from Respublica our power to keep the criminals honest?

What could have been common knowledge had the criminals not set aside trial by jury, our lie detector test, in 1787?

The emerging Side of Socialism could have been a lie that was nipped in the bud in 1787.

What is Socialism today?

If you ask half the world population the answer will be positive. That is the SIDE, roughly half of the entire population, who also claim that Capitalism is evil, as that SIDE claims that Socialism is good.

Returning to Common Sense type thinking from Rights of Many by Thomas Paine, whose words inspired The Declaration of Independence, and a very short still born Land of Liberty between 1776 and 1787. We almost had our lie detector tested Respublic working for us, for defense of the innocent, for Liberty, had it not been for the false federalists using their false front to hide their Monarchical designs to enslave every individual in America, including themselves.

"Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively." Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

We already covered the individually responsible people as they became the Capitalist side of this current state of the currency of lies, and the currency of threats, and the currency of horrid violence world wide, as roughly half of the population is inspired by these lies, and by these threats, to be working to destroy the other half.

We covered the individual, or capitalist side, with our trail going from Thomas Paine, to Lysander Spooner and Josiah Warren, and I've only scratched the surface of the evidence on that trail.

What about the collective responsibility side of things?

____________________________________________________

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

If the individual chooses to gain at the expense of Respublica, then that is what the individual chooses to do, and there are many ways in which that can be done.

If the individual chooses to aid, comfort, abet, lend moral support to, and lend material support to the Respublica, then that is what the individual chooses to do, on their own power of will, voluntarily.

Socialism was born out of the idea that there is a collective responsibility of some kind, such as this idea that there is a public thing.

So there you have it, in words, for your own use, if you choose to use the fruits of the labor of one of the jurists among many jurists.

I am no longer State Coordinator. The deception employed in running me out of that position could have been completely avoided as I've made it quite clear over, and over, and over again, that all anyone needs to do to get rid of me is to ask me to leave.

No need for deception as a means of dealing with me.

My cards are on the table, face up, and there is nothing up my sleeves, hidden, and secreted, and awaiting the opportunity to attack from someone's blind side that I create by my choice to employ deception.

You people who choose deception as a rule will get what is coming to you.

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

I do not care who said those words compared to how much I care to know what those words truly mean.

If you live by deception, if that is your choice you make as your operating system, your path through life, then each lie you tell, or each lie you accept, destroys your capacity to accurately discriminate the difference between lies and God's honest truth.

God's gift to man, if I understand this truth, is moral conscience which depends upon the keen capacity to know the stark difference between good and evil.

Evil is monarchy, as explained in Rights of Man by Thomas Paine.

Thomas Paine, obviously, was unaware of the greater evil afoot in America while he wrote Rights of Man in England in 1792.

A greater evil is a hidden evil, like the fable of the Trojan Horse.

If you stack your deck with lies, you have built a house of cards, and trial by jury, our lie detector test, pulls the rug out from under all the naked kings building their castles on that foundation of quick sand.

From Lysander Spooner again:

Quote:__________________________
In this corrupt and lawless manner, Congress, instead of taking care to preserve the trial by jury, so far as they might, by providing for the appointment of legal juries incomparably the most important of all our judicial tribunals, and the only ones on which the least reliance can be placed for the preservation of liberty have given the selection of them over entirely to the control of an indefinite number of state legislatures, and thus authorized each state legislature to adapt the juries of the United States to the maintenance of any and every system of tyranny that may prevail in such state.

Congress have as much constitutional right to give over all the functions of the United States government into the hand of the state legislatures, to be exercised within each state in such manner as the legislature of such state shall please to exercise them, as they have to thus give up to these legislatures the selection of juries for the courts of the United States.

There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.

These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.

If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced.
_________________________________________

No one is above the law.

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

No one is above the law.

When criminals enforce the institution of slavery, in place of Respublica, taking out Respublica and putting in place the institutionalized slavery of people by people, then a good jurist, commanding moral conscience, does not jump onto that band wagon, waving the slavery flag, and asking for more innocent blood for the exclusive fun and profit of the few.

Those who claim that other people are ignorant, while their ignorance is overwhelming, suffocating, and a BAR on learning true and accurate measures of reality, is striking at that point in that Conference call.

There will be a network that will replace the current 911 network or the people who refuse to see the fraud that glues the current 911 network together will consume all the people in that false network.

The network that will glue together those who will find the truth in every case where there is conflict between an accused and an accuser, so as to know, beyond reasonable doubt the precise demarcation line between an innocent victim and a guilty criminal, will be open, honest, true, perception of accurately perceived facts in each case of conflict.

"As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one of the most roundly hated and violently opposed laws in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of slave rescue cases.
But the Marshals, regardless of their personal feelings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law."

The ignorance in your eye is founded upon a very effective fraud that occurred in Philadelphia in 1787, as a matter of demonstrable fact.

Refusal of acknowledgement of the demonstrable facts of the matter constitutes willful (mens rea) choice, by those who refuse to acknowledge demonstrable facts of the matter, to remain ignorant.

Many forms of knowledge must refused by people, as a matter of demonstrable fact, for there is only so much time during the life of people; which is basic economic knowledge, which can be refused by people as people remain ignorant of basic economics too.

To profess to know basic economic facts while refusing to acknowledge basic economic facts, and to profess to teach basic economics while refusing to acknowledge basic economic facts, while choosing to refuse to acknowledge basic economic facts goes beyond ignorance and moves decidedly into the realm of willful deception.

The same accounting process works for those who falsely profess basic knowledge of law.

Rather than profess to know, how about asking for help in finding precisely where deception is firmly stuck in my own eye, before I take one more step in proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, just how large the plank is as the plank of that Fraud of 1787 continues to be picked up by people and people stick that plank in their own eyes, and they do so for reasons that only they know, and only they can confess overtly, or only they will confess in time as their actions will speak louder than their words.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Who said those words?

So fearless leader John refuses to recognize the extreme wrong of publishing some of the worst "legal advice," ever to be voluntarily voiced by a living soul on this planet, and that fact is bearing down on my soul right now.

"As part of the famous Compromise of 1850, Congress passed one of the most roundly hated and violently opposed laws in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act required U.S. Marshals in the north to return escaped slaves to their masters in the South. Northern abolitionists, who were intent on abolishing the institution of slavery, turned on the Marshals in a number of slave rescue cases.
But the Marshals, regardless of their personal feelings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law merely implemented that Constitutional provision. To deny the law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law."

Here is economic, free market, competition in the market of legal advice:

So you, you, and you, all of y'all, WILL choose the best advice as you, all of y'all, move in time and place on your paths.

If the new net-workers, those who willfully connect into the new network, and work, are willfully choosing to replace the current 911 network with a carbon copy of the current 911 network, out with the old bosses, and in with the new ones, then you WILL get what you pay for, as basic economic facts WILL set in.

If, on the other hand, the new net-workers willfully choose to acknowledge the clearly demonstrated factual account of precisely when the criminals took over, as those criminals made slavery "legal," and as those criminals issued criminal orders to be obeyed without question, and that is the stuff that bound those people to their network, of their choosing, and we the people reject such willful deception as our binding glue, in our network of our choice, then we the people WILL get what we pay for in that case, as we move down that opposite path.

2.
Repeating, reinforcing, cluing in, offering, and offering information according to the advice found in scripture, so as to plead, with utmost sincerity, please, please, show me the plank in my own eye, in this case, or in any case, there are two cases afoot here and now.

1.
"Legalized" Human Trafficking starting in 1787 in Philadelphia as the criminals took over a working federation of republics.

2.
"Legally" setting aside Trial by Jury starting in 1787 in Philadelphia as the criminals took over a working federation of republics.

Words mean precisely what the user of the word intends the words to mean, and if you do not know that much, then you may want to know that much too.

In the Declaration of Independence the following words are reinforced if not repeated verbatim.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

What were the people called when the people chose to acknowledge the fact that Human Trafficking was not legal?

Words convey intending meaning.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

If you want to be a slave, then invest in Legalized Human Trafficking.

Call is slavery and your fraud does not work for you very well, does it?

They are slaves, not me, so call them ignorant, not me, call them "other" people, but do not call them slaves, because that word means something to the slaves who know they are slaves.

What were "they" called when they opposed the obvious fraud at work when the frauds made slavery "legal"?

3.
How about a hint?

If you have not guessed yet, perhaps because the plank in your eye casts a very deep shadow in your thinking, there is a possible place where I can find useful meaning in words, and in that useful meaning in words the answer to the following question can be found.

What where "they" called when "they" exposed the fraud of making Human Trafficking "legal," in the criminal minds of the people who willfully invested into abject criminal enslavement of people by people for the exclusive fun, and the exclusive profit, of the so called "masters," at the cost of the slaves that were enslaved by those who were glued together in that network of institutionalized slavery?

Quote:_____________________________
...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...
_________________________________

4.
The question:
What where "they" called when "they" exposed the fraud of making Human Trafficking "legal," in the criminal minds of the people who willfully invested into abject criminal enslavement of people by people for the exclusive fun, and the exclusive profit, of the so called "masters," at the cost of the slaves that were enslaved by those who were glued together in that network of institutionalized slavery?

The question reduced to a sound bite:
What did good people call good people, or, on the other hand, what label was chosen as a label to brand the people who worked to end institutionalized slavery?

Hint 2:http://blackeyepress.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/stephen-pearl-......
"He went to Louisiana at age 18 and studied and practiced law there; appalled by slavery, he became an abolitionist. Having moved to Texas in 1839, he and his family were almost killed because of his abolitionist lectures and had to flee 1843."

When the criminals take over they invent words that work like magic upon those who willfully follow orders without questioning the right or wrong of such willful choices made by such people as those who are driven to act as they follow deceivers using deception as a very effective weapon of mass destruction.

What were good people called when good people set about abolishing criminal orders issued by criminals who took over government?

Rebels?

Insurgents?

What is that word I am looking for?

What is the punishment for speaking out against the frauds who took over?

What is the punishment for daring to speak out against those who are deceived by those frauds who took over?

In my case the punishment is exile.

I can easily bear that punishment. I can still ask for help, repeatedly asking, relentlessly asking, in the hope that someone will offer generous help in return for my efforts at abolishing deception in our networks of our efforts to return, not set aside, trial by jury, into general use by good people for good people.

The next quote shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that people in at least one Republic in a working Federation, where good people, not abolitionists, people were good people, doing good things, as they acknowledged true law, and as they exposed the frauds for what the frauds were perpetrating in time and place.

This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-America Intelligencer?)

The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.

The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) -- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury.
_______________________________________

There is intended meaning in words. If the meaning is intentionally false, then the source of the words spoken, or written, is a deceiver intending to deceive someone.

When does the master of deception become the slave of his own deceptions?

Just ask, and you may hear silence, or if you hear more deception, then that source confesses those answers.

Respublica (All the people as one, no exceptions) versus Legal Fiction A (a.k.a. The FED)

This is a dream I have, over and over again, a recurring dream, a burden of immense measure bearing down on my soul as moral conscience tends to affect little old me.

There will be a series of efforts, by me, to you, to Respublica, to the Public Thing, for your use, as you please, numbering 3, staring with the case against The FED, then the case against The IRS, and then the Case against Criminal Orders to be obeyed without question by the modern versions of home grown Nazis; wherever they may now be growing stronger, and stronger, because they find ways to make people talk the talk, and walk the walk, along with their False Flags, and their ever so eagerly offered Nazi salutes to their Fuhrer.

Respublica must be understood, in this and the preceding cases, as the counterfeit version will not do to fit the purposes of this case.

The Public Thing is precisely what it is, in fact, without dependence upon the least lie told by the least guilty mind that makes up the entire collective power of all the people everywhere.

The Public Thing is a FUND paid into by all who choose fact over fiction, as that FUND builds up from nothing into the grand power of all our moral conscience combined into a sum total of moral conscience, a whole that is then greater than the sum of all the individual parts, and it is directly placed in opposition to the exact counterpart which can be summed up as Deception and Evil, the big D added to the worst Evil imaginable, so call it the D-evil, as may be worth doing for some, if there is any doubt as to the full measure of the opposition that opposes respublica, the public thing, our collective sum total of our power to nurture our God given moral conscience.

A trial commences in time and place.

There are 12 jurors selected from the pool of jurists. Honest people if God wills it, for the common law method is to take the power of stacking the jury out of the hands of mere mortals, and the power to stack the jury is placed upon the whole country of people, the trial is a trial by the whole country of people, near, and dear, to the accused, the defendant, the presumed to be innocent, the named individual suspect of wrongdoing, and whoever else may have participated, conspiratorially, in the same crime upon the same victim, or the same victims, who are also named.

By lot, not by man, if not by the direct hand of God, are the jurists assembled, 12 in number, honest people, as honest as they are in fact, not in fiction, and these people try this case, in time, and these people try this case in place.

Imagine, if you will, a fictional account, for this has not happened yet, and this may never happen, so long as the criminals rule these people on this planet.

Entering the court of record room, the court building, are various people, none of which are lawfully any more powerful than any other, this is not a story about a kangaroo court, or a court conducted by criminals, or a court conducted by fools who are not even aware of the fact that their false court is false.

Entering at some point, as the crowd of people increase, is a magistrate, a judge, an individual who specializes in maintaining order, efficiency, and step by grueling step progress along the process that is due to all who accuse, and all who are accused, of any wrongdoing worthy of the effort to commence, and follow through, with trial by jury, with due process, with our law of our land, with our common demand for the common supply of common law, which results in the saving our our souls, which results in our temporal salvation, as we prefer not to solve our problems with trials by ordeal, with duels, with gun fights, with weapons of mass destruction, the worst of which are lies.

We seek the truth, and the magistrate knows how to maintain order in due process as well as anyone in the whole country, at least as well as anyone in the court room where the court of record is recorded in time and place.

All don't rise. The judge is one of the people, presumed to be innocent, having no record of unredeemed crime accounted to the judge, no standing accusations whatsoever, and therefore another member of the jury pool, a member of the people in good standing among the people insisting upon good standing, not one of the criminals who chose a life of crime; despite the olive branch afforded to all criminals, all the time, by our natural law, our God given law, our law of our land, our due process, afforded to all, without exception.

All don't rise. The judge acknowledges the beginning of the trial, the time, the day, and the floor is open for opening statements.

To be continued; the work bell rings.

Judge:

"Order in the court." The people assembled polarize. The judge introduces the case.

"Let the record show on this day that the trail of Respublica versus the Legal Fiction A, The case against The Federal Reserve System, begins, and representing the people at large, representing the Public Thing, is the Public Prosecutors, who are also the accusers in this case, and their names are now entered into the Record as John Q Public and Jane Q Public. These people will make their opening statements, and then whoever stands as the defendant, under subpoena, or on their own volition, will, as they may, as they can, or as they please, speak in their defense, doing so now, or the absence of their defense will be their defense, which is no defense, and a clear, voluntary, confession of guilt, as this court of record, according to the common law, has expended, at the public cost to the public fund, a voluntary collection of real monies, a cost to the Public Thing, every reasoanble expense due the accused, in the effort to afford them the opportunity of having their side of this case heard in this court, including said subpoenas delivered by hand to each of the named defendants in this case."

The judge remains silent for one long minute. Those assembled in the court room also remain silent for the whole minute.

Then the judge looks at the two Prosecutors and offers them their opportunity to set the common law court of record straight in this case.

"Please commence your opening statements John and or Jane Q Public, our time is wasting away, and there are many good people among us, innocent people, paying the ultimate price in these very trying times. It is past time to settle this matter once and for all."

Jane and John both stand and look at each other, Jane nodding to John. John appears to be the more nervous one of the two, and John speaks first. "Your honor -"

The judge interrupts immediately. "Please John, we are all just people here, there is no need to address me at all in this case. Call me umpire, perhaps, if needed, or just call me Bill, my name is Bill. This is a common law trial by jury, you ought to address your statements to the people assembled here as jurists in the jury. It is their duty to represent the whole country, as the fact finders according to God's law, or Natural Law for those not yet familiar with God, and they will either be honorable, doing the right thing, acting unanimously, as if they were our best possible lie detector we as people can muster, and they establish the law of this case, the facts of this case, guilt if there is any, innocence on the part of the victims, if that is found by these people, our jurists, as the facts, and these people, our jurists will also, if it is possible, again as our representatives of the whole country, our Public Thing, our Respublica, our law of our land, our regem terrae, find, they will find, again unanimously, any punishment due to the accused if the accused be found guilty."

John and Jane hesitate. The Judge fills in the void. "Please, Jane, take a stab at it, we are burning dayight."

Jane Q Public faces the assembled jurors and begins speaking as if she had at her command the intense attention of the whole country of people at once. "This case is more than seeking equal access to the first seat available on public transport systems, and more than an equal chance to buy a hamburger at a public school lunch counter, my friends of Liberty, this case is the case that bores down into the soul of America, and offers to us our temporal salvation, to redeem our collective souls -"

The Judge again interrupts. "That was very well said, Jane, but the facts in this case ought to paint the picture of relative significance well enough along the way, so, excuse my interruption, albeit to compliment you on one hand, the idea is to get to the bottom of this case, before we all die of old age. If you please."

John Q Public steps out from a table and moves directly in front of the assembled jurists, he does so with an obvious interest in commanding the situation. "We must establish the meaning of this case as a matter of accurately measurable facts, beyond any reasonable doubt, among any randomly selected group of jurists, so as to ensure that this trial proceeds as it ought to proceed in any event, anywhere, on any land, at any time. This case ought to have been recorded as a precedent set, according to the common law, in the time of Jesus, and if we the people had done so then, we would not be in the fix we are in now. It is past time to listen to the words offered in Scripture, and use them in earnest. Among our numbers are very evil people, who were called then, back in the time of Jesus, by the fictional name of Money Changers. They were then, as they are now, frauds, criminals, of the worst kind. They have names. They walk among us. They have but one obvious goal in their guilty minds. They will burn out the souls of every innocent victim they touch with their lies, as they turn each of us against each other of us, removing from us this very thing we share, this Public Thing, this common law, this law of our land, this fact finding process that we have been given, and that we can use, to defend the innocent among us, if any are left among us, from the guilty among us, hoping that God, or chance, allowed 12 honest people to be present here and now."

The judge intently follows the actions of John, looking for the cue to move another step in the process, but there is a seamless passing of command from John to Jane as opening statements flow from the souls of the Prosecutors into the Court of Record. The judge refrains from interrupting despite the growing concern by the judge that the jurists may not be listening carefully.

As soon as John stops speaking Jane picks up a new sentence at that period ending John's offer of words to the Jurists. "We will offer the olive branch to our tormentors in this case, under no uncertain terms, clearly, precisely, and without error in communication, a choice of redemption will be offered by you the jurists to those who will be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in this case against the criminals who have destroyed so much for so long with their false money scam known by the false title Federal Reserve System."

Jane spoke from the table as John returned and both Prosecutors sit at the end of the opening statements.

The judge picks up the ball. "It is my duty to instruct the jurists as to the State of the accused, as to their absence in this court of record, whereby the named accused have refused every request, and then every forceful order, to attend this trial by jury according to the common law. Their defense is silence, ignorance, apathy, whatever you as jurists will judge to be the facts in this case, and my opinion as judge, or the opinions of the Prosecutors are what they are in fact, offered to you, to the Public Thing, to all the people at once, on the record, as factual opinions only. You will have my opinion to work with, you will have the opinions of the Prosecutors to work with, in this case, and you will also have, on the record, every attempt on our part to afford the accused the defense they can muster, and the fact is that they choose not to defend themselves. These are the facts as they exist, and you as jurists must deal with these facts, as they exist, and if you find cause to doubt the sincerity of effort expended to inspire the accused to defend themselves, consider that willful choice on your part as a fact in this case, and do so with knowledge concerning our common law. A failure on your part to find the truth will not go unchallenged for long, such is the way of Nature, and such are the words offered in Scripture. Please keep that in mind, we are all accountable for our errors in judgment."

The judge senses the opportunity to pile upon the jurists a additional idea that could arm the jurists with the knowledge that may tip the balance in favor of truth. "If you fail in your duty in this case, then that failure will either be a very serious failure to arrest the criminal willful injury of innocent victims, or as bad as that failure may be, your failure could be worse still, as instead of affording the victims a proper defense, your error compounds injury by your failure on top of the injury done to the innocent victims by the criminals; in essence your failure turns justice into crime, turns truth into lies, and ruins the good standing of our common laws. Your failure, if that is our fate, destroys our power to defend ourselves and unless further action remedies your failure, the injury done by you passes as law, yet it will be counterfeit law, by your hands in this case."

A few jurists begin raising their hands and the judge arrests that effort to open up two way communications, or discussions, between jurists and judge. "Please, hands down, there is little time here for chatting with me, all your questions will be addressed in due time."

The judge then explains the situation involving assigned public defenders standing in place of the accused defendants. "Those 2 people at that table are going to now speak on behalf of the Public Thing in the capacity of defending the accused in this case, in the willful absence of the accused, for our common laws must afford everyone who is accused of any wrongdoing a form of defense. The cost of this defense is covered by the voluntary Public Fund, by our voluntary taxes, which are meager, so these representatives of the accused are reasonably selected from our local pool of students currently studying our common laws. Their interest is thereby ensured to be a common interest in the truth, not a special interest in gaining at the expense of the Public Fund. They volunteer, as do yourselves, the jurists, albeit with a meager compensation for living and travel expenses. Now you are fully informed as to what can be expected from the opening statements made by these public defenders in the absence of any of the named accused defendants themselves or representatives hired by the accused."

Both Public Defenders, Henry and Jill, were inspired to stand up, as the Judge introduced them, and Jill begins the defendants opening statements, addressing the jurists, and walking from the table to stand in front of the rows of jurists. "As we the people look deeply into this case, the alleged crime as it currently exists, if it exists as a crime, we ought to look in the mirror while we judge the accused for their part in this ongoing transfer of power flowing in the form of legal money. Had we the people refused to accept this form of money, there would then have been no demand for it, and this form of money, from these people accused of this crime, would never have gained any currency. This money would not have sold well, or at all, to anyone, if there was no demand for it. This form of money would have long ago went the same way as the Confederate money issued by the Southern Confederacy at the end of the Civil War."

NOTES:

Notes from the author of -Test Trial 1.

The date of this writing is 8-31-2014.

I want to get something straight here and now. The idea above is not specious, fictitious, novel, as a product of an over-active imagination born out of someone, a so called conspiracy theorist, a lone pen-man, rather the above is the battle at hand.

On the side of the defenders of the innocent are those whose job, whose work, is to prosecute the case, in the name of all the innocent people, through the idea of The Public Thing, or Respublica, which is an idea that is at least as old as The Golden Age of Greece, predating Jesus as the Christian Son of God.

On the side of the defendant, which is the accused, which is also the presumed to be innocent, the alleged perpetrator of injury done to the innocent, and done willfully upon the innocent, from a guilty mind, but presumed to be innocent, for all according to the common law are afforded the same law, and there are no exceptions, each is processed through due process from eyes that are blind initially, on the side of the defendant, are people too, real people.

Side A is the incessant demand for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us, please, please, with sugar on top, God.

Side B is precisely the same thing as Side A. People seeking the truth on both sides, on the side of the prosecutor, and the side of the defendant, people seek the truth. The best defense, for someone who is guilty, is to get down to the accurate accounting of their crime soonest, so as then to know the true measure of the redemption that can be afforded to the guilty, as a matter of established fact, within the very limited boundaries of people who are prone to error; again, so help us God, we must find the truth, and we must help the guilty find redemption, sooner, rather than too late.

Side C, on the other hand, can be summed up as Deception and Evil incarnate, or in human form, in the flesh.

Side B in my story line, again I am not a so called conspiracy theorist, and this story is being told in this way for specific reasons, as a story-line, but it is an attempt to get a real story out, to get people to see the truth, because we, as people, as The Public Thing, have lost our way, in no uncertain terms, as the innocent victims pile up, tortured and burned out souls, reaching for heaven, because no one knows better, or no one cares enough, and because Deception, and Evil, are walking among us, in demonstrable fact.

At this juncture, of this story, which I may or may not finish, I decided to place Side C, deception and evil, into one of the people written as the defenders, while the other, oddly enough, plays the part of the Devil's Advocate. So the people who are taking up the work of defending the accused, in this story line, will be a willfully evil criminal himself, and the co-defending worker (not a Bar Association Attorney because this is a fictional common law trial by jury case, not a Legal Fiction False Court Case) will represent the fool on the hill, or the one who sits upon a fence, where there is no fence, because the fence is pure fiction.

All that above may appear to be just so much gibberish to so many people who may stumble upon this writing, and then they move on to more interesting things. To those who know what I am writing about, let it be known to them, that these so called defenders, in this story line, will, in time, either successfully help defend the innocent from the guilty, or they will successfully maintain the false front, the legal fiction, whereby the actual criminals always escape accountability, while the so called corporate soul is blamed for the wrongdoing instead of the people behind the facade, those pulling the strings from down low, way, way, way, down low.

It is from my view, more, and more, patently absurd to claim that these criminals we face as a whole people, are in any way some form of elite, in Ivory Towers, stacked on top of some nebulous Pyramid, looking down with their All-Seeing-Eye. The worst of the worst evil people, are criminals, base, deceitful, threatening, torturers, and mass murderers, and worse things they do to whatever is remaining of our innocent.

If we let them have their way with our innocent, there will be no innocence at all.

They will burn the innocence out of the souls, quite literally, as they please, for their exclusive fun, and their exclusive profit, because we let them.

The reasons why I write this now, are many, including a choice this morning to return to my study of the Martin Luther King murder, murder by spooks, phantoms, all of which are so well hidden, in plain sight, behind their Legal Fiction. So that is the leading idea causing me to focus that battle upon those 2 characters who will be the Public Defenders in this first Common Law Trial by Jury Case 1 titled: Respublica Versus Legal Fiction A, or The Case against the FED, or The Case for the soul of America.

The Case for the Soul of America is a positive light (I've been accused of creating "spin," and I prefer to defend myself against such negative MUD thrown on whatever may remain of my good name), while The Case Against The FED is the negative aspect forced upon the innocent by the willfully guilty, as there would be no cause for action, in defense, were we all to heed the advice in Scripture, and heed the advice offered from whatever remains of our individual, and our collective, moral conscience.

The devil will be in the detail of the one Public Defender as that one reaches for the idea that those people at The FED are innocent, and all of the focus of Guilt ought to be, according to this willfully deceptive Devil incarnate, accounted solely upon the Legal Fiction, or the Corporation itself.

So that focuses attention precisely upon the actual battle we face as people on the two obvious sides where people will choose to be on, and there is no fence, one side is criminal, the other side is not, and in between is where the rubber meets the road, where the innocent bodies are piled up, or bulldozed into mass graves, by the criminals, or by their servants.

Two sides, and no fence, are then going to be shown in this trial, offered to anyone who cares to know, as such:

Side 1: Effective Defenders of the Innocent, or Respublica, including a common law Judge working as a Magistrate. Two common law Prosecutors refusing to allow the criminals to claim one more innocent victim. One common law Public Defender equally interested in finding the truth, so as then to truly find out if the defendant is innocent as presumed, or if the accused is guilty, and then in need of a true form of redemption. A number of jurists who may or may not be on the right side of things; so that has to be worked on in this story too.

Side 2: My personal study has concluded, beyond any doubt whatsoever, no reasonable doubt at all, that those who are guilty of maintaining The FED counterfeiting crime are guilty in fact, or actus reus, if not guilty of mind, or mens rea, so someone who does look at the facts of this case and they know the guilty are guilty, and they know that the guilty ought to be afforded redemption, yet they decide to employ deception as a means to cover up the guilty criminals in this case, that deceiver, that willful deceiver, is evil, he is himself a criminal, either a pathological one, meaning a criminal having no moral conscience whatsoever, or a willful, mens rea, guilty minded criminal, and that part is played, in this story by the one Public Defender who decides to tell the Legal Fiction Story as a method by which he will attempt to divert accountability away from the actual people who are guilty of perpetrating this world wide counterfeiting crime known as The FED, or also known as The World Reserve Currency, or The New World Order, or whichever False Front they construct, and maintain, as a means of hiding the actual evil people pulling the strings from down in the bowels of criminal-man-made hell-on-earth.

Sides again:

Side 1:
Respublica, God's Law, Natural Law, legem terrae, law of the land, common law, due process due everyone without exception, trial by jury, man's best lie detector, the public thing, the entire list of names of every living soul created anywhere, anytime, the entire list of each name of every one, each one spoken as a living being worthy of life, each one afforded effective defense against the criminals who choose, or who are made by criminals, to be on the wrong side, the evil side.

Side 2:
Those who perpetrate aggressive deception upon the innocent. Those who perpetrate aggressive threats upon the innocent. Those who perpetrate aggressive, horrible, torturous, murderous, terrifying violence upon the innocent. Those who do so willfully, and those who do so as followers following evil orders without question, for their exclusive fun, and for their exclusive profit, at the expense of the innocent who still walk among us, because the Evil side will not subject all to their evil existence, they will not "win," until the last one on the good side is either murdered or enticed into joining the Monopoly of Crime, also known as Legal Fiction.

So long as one innocent life is left, and so long as there is one who chooses to defend that last innocent life, so long will evil remain to be defeated in fact. Evil is the willful destruction of all innocent life for the exclusive pleasure of evil people.

Quote_____________________
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
_____________________________________

That explains how dictators steal all the power that can be stolen from the subjects who are subjected to dictators running a dictatorship. So the dictators running the dictatorship grow fat, stupid, and many; while the subjects grow poor, angry, and few.

Soon enough there isn't anything left to steal, because that path leads to everyone becoming dictators in dictatorships, and there are no more subjects making things worth stealing.

So I take issue with this:
"If you read the case it actually confirms that the State does have the authority to require a Driver's License."

There is no such thing as a State having authority, and anyone making such claims is either one of the dictators who knows there is no such thing as a State having authority, or one of the dictators who actually thinks that the State has authority.

1. The one making the claim knows the claim is a lie, for common sense is such that a legal fiction, or State, cannot have authority. Common sense is such that a legal fiction, or State, cannot have accountability. Legal fiction cannot have responsibility. Legal fiction cannot have liability.

2. The one making the claim fell into the legal fiction falsehood web of deceit.
The State has no authority. The State is a legal fiction.

If someone speaks about the State, then they are speaking about a few people who think and act as a group. The State does not have, hold, use, employ, authority. People have, hold, use, employ, authority. When people abuse authority that abuse is called treason, or crime, and people either know it, or people are defenseless against crimes done by false authorities, meaning people, as people are false authorities when they abuse authority, not legal fictions, or States perpetrating crimes.

If the idea is to understand the public thing, or res-publica, then that idea may be a good idea.

If the idea is to promote limited liability legal fictions that pose as authority under the color of law, then count me out.

"THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION"

. . . In the present state of mankind, and of conducting war, the government of every nation must have power to raise and keep up regular troops. The question is, how shall this power be lodged? In an entire government, as in Great-Britain, where the people assemble by their representatives in one legislature, there is no difficulty; it is of course properly lodged in that legislature. But in a confederated republic, where the organization consists of a federal head, and local governments, there is no one part in which it can be solely, and safely lodged. By Art. 1., Sect. 8., "congress shall have power to raise and support armies," etc. By Art. I., Sect. 10., "no state, without the consent of congress, shall keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace." It seems fit the union should direct the raising of troops, and the union may do it in two ways: by requisitions on the states, or by direct taxes. The first is most conformable to the federal plan, and safest; and it may be improved, by giving the union power, by its own laws and officers, to raise the state's quota that may neglect, and to charge it with the expense; and by giving a fixed quorum of the state legislatures power to disapprove the requisition.

There would be less danger in this power to raise troops, could the state governments keep a proper control over the purse and over the militia. But after all the precautions we can take, without evidently fettering the union too much, we must give a large accumulation of powers to it, in these and other respects. There is one check, which, I think may be added with great propriety-that is, no land forces shall be kept up, but by legislative acts annually passed by congress, and no appropriation of monies for their support shall be for a longer term than one year. This is the constitutional practice in Great Britain, and the reasons for such checks in the United States appear to be much stronger. We may also require that these acts be passed by a special majority, as before mentioned. There is another mode still more guarded, and which seems to be founded in the true spirit of a federal system: it seems proper to divide those powers we can with safety, lodge them in no one member of the government alone; yet substantially to preserve their use, and to insure duration to the government by modifying the exercise of them-it is to empower congress to raise troops by direct levies, not exceeding a given number, say 2000 in time of peace, and 12,000 in a time of war, and for such further troops as may be wanted, to raise them by requisitions qualified ,as before mentioned. By the above recited clause no state shall keep troops, etc., in time of peace-this clearly implies it may do it in time of war. This must be on the principle that the union cannot defend all parts of the republic, and suggests an idea very repugnant to the general tendency of the system proposed, which is to disarm the state governments. A state in a long war may collect forces sufficient to take the field against the neighboring states. This clause was copied from the confederation, in which it was of more importance than in the plan proposed, because under this the separate states, probably, will have but small revenues.

By Article I., section 8., congress shall have power to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. It is to be observed, that the separate states have ever been in possession of the power, and in the use of it, of making bankrupt-laws, militia laws, and laws in some other cases, respecting which, the new constitution, when adopted, will give the union power to legislate, etc. But no words are used by the constitution to exclude the jurisdiction of the several states, and whether they will be excluded or not, or whether they and the union will have concurrent jurisdiction or not, must be determined by inference, and from the nature of the subject. If the power, for instance, to make uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, is in its nature indivisible, or incapable of being exercised by two legislatures independently, or by one in aid of the other, then the states are excluded, and cannot legislate at all on the subject, even though the union should neglect or find it impracticable to establish uniform bankrupt laws. How far the union will find it practicable to do this, time only can fully determine. When we consider the extent of the country, and the very different ideas of the different parts in it, respecting credit, and the mode of making men's property liable for paying their debts, we may, I think with some degree of certainty, conclude that the union never will be able to establish such laws. But if practicable, it does not appear to me, on further reflection, that the union ought to have the power. It does not appear to me to be a power properly incidental to a federal head, and, I believe, no one ever possessed it. It is a power that will immediately and extensively interfere with the internal police of the separate states, especially with their administering justice among their own citizens. By giving this power to the union, we greatly extend the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, as all questions arising on bankrupt laws, being laws of the union . . .-[indeed], almost all civil causes-may be drawn into those courts. We must be sensible how cautious we ought to be in extending unnecessarily the jurisdiction of those courts for reasons I need not repeat. This article of power too, will considerably increase, in the hands of the union, an accumulation of powers, some of a federal and some of an unfederal nature, [already] too large without it.

The constitution provides that congress shall have the sole and exclusive government of what is called the federal city, a place not exceeding ten miles square, and of all places ceded for forts, dock-yards, etc. I believe this is a novel kind of provision in a federal republic; it is repugnant to the spirit of such a government, and must be founded in an apprehension of a hostile disposition between the federal head and the state governments. And it is not improbable that the sudden retreat of congress from Philadelphia first gave rise to it. With this apprehension, we provide, the government of the union shall have secluded places, cities, and castles of defense, which no state laws whatever shall invade. When we attentively examine this provision in all its consequences, it opens to view scenes almost without bounds. A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. it is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc., totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments. If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West- Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States.

The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these
places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .

Every suit in which an inhabitant of a federal district may be a party, of course may be instituted in the federal courts; also, every suit in which it may be alleged and not denied, that a party in it is an inhabitant of such a district; also, every suit to which a foreign state or subject, the union, a state, citizens of different states in fact, or by reasonable legal fictions, may be a party or parties. And thus, by means of bankrupt laws, federal districts, etc., almost all judicial business, I apprehend may be carried into the federal courts, without essentially departing from the usual course of judicial
proceedings. The courts in Great Britain have acquired their powers, and extended very greatly their jurisdictions by such :fiction and suppositions as I have mentioned. The constitution, in these points, certainly involves in it principles, and almost hidden cases, which may unfold and in time exhibit consequences we hardly think of. The power of naturalization, when viewed in connection with the judicial powers and cases, is, in my mind, of very doubtful extent. By the constitution itself, the citizens of each state will be naturalized citizens of every state, to the general purposes of instituting suits, claiming the benefits of the laws, etc. And in order to give the federal courts jurisdiction of an action, between citizens of the same state, in common acceptation-may not a court allow the plaintiff to say, he is a citizen of one state, and the defendant a citizen of another without carrying legal fictions so far, by any means, as they have been carried by the courts of King's Bench and Exchequer, in order to bring causes within their cognizance? Further, the federal city and districts, will be totally distinct from any state, and a citizen of a state will not of course be subject of any of them. And to avail himself of the privileges and immunities of them, must he not be naturalized by congress in them? And may not congress make any proportion of the citizens of the states naturalized subjects of the federal city and districts, and thereby entitle them to sue or defend, in all cases, in the federal courts? I have my doubts, and many sensible men, I find, have their doubts, on these points. And we ought to observe, they must be settled in the courts of law, by their rules, distinctions, and fictions. To avoid many of these intricacies and difficulties, and to avoid the undue and unnecessary extension of the federal judicial powers, it appears to me that no federal districts ought to be allowed, and no federal city or town-except perhaps a small town, in which the government shall be republican, but in which congress shall have no jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the states. Can the union want, in such a town, any thing more than a right to the soil to which it may set its buildings, and extensive jurisdiction over the federal buildings, and property, its own members, officers, and servants in it? As to all federal objects, the union will have complete jurisdiction over them of course any where, and every where. I still think that no actions ought to be allowed to be brought in the federal courts, between citizens of different states; at least, unless the cause be of very considerable importance. And that no action against a state government, by any citizen or foreigner, ought to be allowed; and no action, in which a foreign subject is party, at least, unless it be of very considerable importance, ought to be instituted in federal courts. I confess, I can see no reason whatever, for a foreigner, or for citizens of different states, carrying sixpenny causes into the federal courts.

I think the state courts will be found by experience, to be bottomed on better principles, and to administer justice better than the federal courts. The difficulties and dangers I have supposed will result from so large a federal city, and federal districts, from the extension of the federal judicial powers, etc. are not, I conceive, merely possible, but probable. I think pernicious political consequences will follow from them, and from the federal city especially, for very obvious reasons, a few of which I will mention.

We must observe that the citizens of a state will be subject to state as well as federal taxes, and the inhabitants of the federal city and districts only to such taxes as congress may lay. We are not to suppose all our people are attached to free government, and the principles of the common law, but that many thousands of them will prefer a city governed not on republican principles. This city, and the government of it, must indubitably take their tone from the characters of the men, who from the nature of its situation and institution must collect there. This city will not be established for productive labor, for mercantile, or mechanic industry; but for the residence of government, its officers and attendants. If hereafter it should ever become a place of trade and industry, [yet] in the early periods of its existence, when its laws and government must receive their fixed tone, it must be a mere court, with its append ages-the executive, congress, the law courts, gentle men of fortune and pleasure, with allthe officers, attendants, suitors, expectants and dependents on the whole. However brilliant and honorable this collection may be, If we expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the laborious part of a free people, we must assuredly deceive ourselves. This early collection will draw to it men from all parts of the country, of a like political description. We see them looking towards the place already.

Such a city, or town, containing a hundred square miles, must soon be the great, the visible, and dazzling centre, the mistress of fashions, and the fountain of politics. There may be a free or shackled press in this city, and the streams which may issue from it may over flow the country, and they will be poisonous or pure, as the fountain may be corrupt or not. But not to dwell on a subject that must give pain to the virtuous friends of freedom, I will only add, can a free and enlightened people create a common head so extensive, so prone to corruption and slavery, as this city probably will be, when they have it in their power to form one pure and chaste, frugal and republican?

My reply in Case 1:
A court run by criminals so as to perpetrate a crime is a crime in progress. What is a defacto court? Where does the origin of the term defacto court come from precisely? Was the term defacto court an intentional deception to use an honest court as a false front to hide a crime at the time the term defacto court was created, and if so, then is it a good idea to stop helping the criminals hide their crimes before it is too late?

First:
I offered my competitive viewpoints to John Darash on the subject matter (jurisdiction?) of Administrator Education.

I was given the go ahead, by John Darash, to start this Topic with this title. I wanted the title to be along the lines of Administrator Courses Competition. Someone on the Conference Call wanted a different title; hence the title Administrator Discussion instead of Administrator Course Competition, or Administrator Testing Competition.

During that conversation I asked questions concerning the future Testing procedure that will work as a GATE KEEPING effort to stack the Administrators allowed into POWER as National Liberty Alliance Common Law Grand Jury Administrators.

Before someone goes all nuts on me, in their brains, as to the GATE KEEPING and JURY STACKING terminology, it may help to know what I mean in FACT.

It is perfectly legitimate to narrow down the pool of jurists in any case where people in ancient history, or people in recent history, or people now, or people in the future endeavor to employ the concept of trial by jury as an effective means by which people defend each other with a process that is affordable to everyone, and affordable especially to the criminals who may then find a remedy for their life of crime with due process of law.

Stacking the jury, or keeping the gate closed to unwanted jurists, or opening the gate to jurists wanted, qualifier, able, educated, knowledgeables, wise, moral, effective, accurate, kind, just, merciful, on and on, can be easily seen in a few angles of view.

1. Rocks cannot sit on juries. Rocks cannot breath air, or see things, but rocks don't lie, so a rock on a jury is better than a specialist who specializes in lying.

2. Lizards, rats, vampire bats, mad dogs, vipers, tomatoes, cabbages,
other vegetables, and any number of unqualified living beings cannot sit on juries, but again those living things do not lie, so those things are better on juries than well practiced, well paid, well educated, liars.

3. Randomly selecting 12 people out of all things, everywhere, including rocks, rats, and cabbages, are not likely to work effectively in defending the innocent from the liars and the criminals who hire the liars to keep the criminals covered up.

4. Narrowing down the effective pool of jurists is a process that is now working as I type this in reality. Those who volunteer to be jurists are in the pool. Those who don't, are not in the pool.

5. Despite all the efforts by the well paid liars, the criminals, and the foreign, evil, Exchequer/Common Pleas/Equity/Chancellery/Admiralty-Maritime/Kangaroo (see: http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/lecture-notes...) Court people (things cannot be responsible or accountable for willful action) the innocent people are not so stupid, ignorant, apathetic, dumb, reckless, criminally negligent, or criminally insane, to completely remove trial by jury from existence as a means by which people defend people from criminals, and people defend people especially from people who are hidden behind the color of law.

6. Despite all the effective falsehood infecting so many minds in the existing jury pool, trial by jury remains very powerful as a process afforded to almost everyone - if we the people volunteer.

7. Can the existing pool of jurists be inspired to volunteer, to educate themselves, and to then be better armed at finding the truth and the law in any case?

The concept of National Liberty Alliance is effectually an answer to the previous question.

Yes, that is gate keeping, and yes that is stacking the jury POOL.

So long as the element of random selection (sortition) is preserved so long will the Rule by Man (dictatorship) element be removed.

Res-pubica, or government for the people, by the people, and of the people, is thereby preserved, and thereby, with that element of sortition (random selection) the ultimate choice of stacking each jury in each case is out of the hands of dictators and into the hands of whichever POWER is at work when 12 (petite) or 25 (grand) people are randomly selected in each case.

The way it works for the criminals is for the criminals to create a DEPENDENCE upon the CRIMINAL money (unsound, false, misleading, fraudulent, extortive, or just call it what it is: criminal) and then the criminals add or subtract the MONEY SUPPLY to create BOOMS and BUSTS.

When the criminals create BUSTS, there is then DEPRESSION cause by the criminals who outlaw any money other than the criminal money, and the criminals keep all the money, and the criminals do not allow anyone other than fellow criminals to gain access to the criminal money, and that is a simple as it gets folks.

So...the story in Worgl Austria, before Wall Street financed the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, was a place where the people solved their dependence upon criminal money problem.

That is the same story each time that solution is used (in any form the money may take) when the criminals intend to cause DEPRESSION or BUST, or DESTABILIZATION, or whichever word they want to use today: inflation, quantitative easing, enhanced interrogation techniques, extraordinary rendition, human trafficking.

How about that one? Look mom there is a human traffic jam.

How about trail of tears?

How about Bataan Death March?

See what happens when accurate accounting is done? Call a spade a spade and follow the trail back to the source to find what?

So the fix on the Federal design is such that there are then 50 Republics where some of the Republics may have 50 competitions going on in each county, and the result is a FORCE (free market force is strictly voluntary choices people make so as to get more bang for their bucks, better instead of worse, higher quality instead of lower quality, and lower cost instead of higher cost) and what does the money look like at that point when that starts?

What does the money look like when that free market force works for a long time in many competitive cities, counties, republics, and federations?

Compare the improvements in money markets (negative) to the improvements in computers and cell phones (positive).

If people can't set aside the health issues with cell phones, then concentrate only on how free market forces work on personal computers instead of both cell phones and personal computers, or, just look at connectivity in general.

In the past someone could have and hold the information needed to save someone else from a life threatening condition, and the distance between the information needed and the information supply was measured in months or years of travel time.

Now we have the ability to open source all medical information world wide, if we want to, and then a database open to all (the public) would enable each patient to connect almost instantly to the most effective cure (highest in quality and affordable in cost).

That (free market forces) works on all things within the power of people.

Money is no different than personal computers.

If it is open source, or the market is free for all competitors (not criminal competition) then the force applied will be the force of many voluntary choices seeking higher quality and lower cost.

Karen Hudes is describing that difference, despite the fact that Karen Hudes may be very wrong about many other issues.

The World Reserve Currency Power is often divided into criminal opponents seeking to gain World Reserve Currency Power and that is not an accident, that is done that way on purpose; that is the nature of that game.

That is World War III. Russia is financed and encouraged to fight Nato; and China ends up with World Reserve Currency Power as the ONE WAR DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY.

The same people show up as the "leaders of the free world" if you look for them.

1. New World Order/Illuminati
2. Jesuits

Jesuits are said to be betting on the Chinese. Jesuits are probably offering the deal to the New World Order/Illuminati, take it or suffer the consequences.

If you are not a member you are food for cannons.

You are given a ticket to the pogrom. You are invited to dinner and you are on the menu.

The solution was in the hands of the people in the form of a Federal (free market) government design between 1776 and 1787, including trial by jury in each Republic at various levels of competitive power IN OPPOSITION to Exchequer/Common Pleas/Equity/Chancellery/Admiralty-Maritime/Kangaroo "due process," which was, is, and will always be summary just us.

and the solutions you offer are brilliant and in a world ruled by laws and not men, they could very well offer the solutions we all so desperately seek...liberty from the rule of evil men who see us much in the same manner that leeches do...as hosts to suck dry until their is nothing left to suck from, and all the while their bellies grow fat with blood.

However Josf, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12. In other words, the oppression of the poor and weak in this world is nothing new and it not waged by evil men alone, but by the powers of darkness which they serve, to their own eventual destruction. This is a war that has been waging since the beginning of time and it has taken me some time to come to the realization that it can not and never will be won by mere human efforts. History alone bares this statement to be fact. When has humanity ever achieved any level of real freedom for more than a fleeting moment before the chains are then reattached and the misery resumed?

This is not a war of flesh, but a spiritual war against good and evil and it has been waging since the dawn of man. The good news is, the war for the one thing that really matters has already been won, that is the war for our very souls. God has secured our victory in that area through Christ, if only we will receive what has been won at great cost.

As long as this earth exists in it's present state, evil will do what evil has always done...rape, pillage and plunder humanity, for it knows it's time is short. If it is true liberty you seek, it can only be found in Christ. Once you have accepted that, you can rest assured that one day you will reside in a world where evil men no longer exist and true freedom reigns. Freedom to love and live righteously alongside your Creator. Do not look to men for solutions; they are fallen and eventually will always let you down. Look to God, and perhaps if enough people do the same along side you, we may again be granted a brief respite from our oppressors, but eventually "spiritual evil in the high places" will do what it does and ravage a fallen world. Permanent freedom from evil will never be achieved in this world, but is guaranteed in the next for those who will receive it.

Which parts of each viewpoint are worthy of the label truth and which parts of each viewpoint are less, by some accurate measure, worthy of the label of truth?

Many people throughout time have existed from birth to death in relative paradise.

There will be one such example that is among the top 1000, 100, and the top 10 for the all time best (for now) example of relative paradise on earth in all of the time of people on earth.

It is my considered opinion that none of the people in the top 1000, top 100, or to 10 people who have lived in relative paradise are people who gained anything at the expense of anyone through crime of any kind.

In other words; it is most likely that the top 1000, top 100, or top 10, elite people, those who exemplify the best, the brightest, the shinning examples of people on earth, were relatively poor in the measure of monetary units of wealth.

I will add, on this idea, the concept of separating people into two obvious groups.

1.
Those who exist by criminals means.

2.
Those who gain nothing from anyone through criminal means.

Now among those two groups are again top 1000, top 100, and top 10 examples of the best, brightest, shining examples of people on earth; however in that case those in group 1 are all in relative misery compared to those in group 2.

In other words the top 10, and the top 1 in group 1 is relatively miserable compared to the bottom of the barrel in group 2.

That is a simplistic way to answer your question here:

"When has humanity ever achieved any level of real freedom for more than a fleeting moment before the chains are then reattached and the misery resumed?"

Life is more complicated than my view alone can accurately measure.

Shinning examples in time and place include, in my opinion, the time period before the Revolutionary War (before the criminals really started working on those people) and the time in America before The Civil War, and then before World War I/II, then before Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/etc.

When the criminals get going they leave no doubt as to their handy work, just count the bodies in the pile.

In each case of the people gaining power to live well the power exerted by the so called "elite" criminal "class" is relatively absent. I think that type of viewpoint is a useful, and accurate, measure.

"This is not a war of flesh, but a spiritual war against good and evil and it has been waging since the dawn of man. The good news is, the war for the one thing that really matters has already been won, that is the war for our very souls. God has secured our victory in that area through Christ, if only we will receive what has been won at great cost."

If anyone thinks that I have any reason, or any action accountable to me, whereby I claim that someone else is wrong in their religious belief, then such thoughts are false.

You have offered a religious belief in words you picked out and your offer of words is received by me, and it is acknowledged by me as your religious belief.

I do not know what to do with your religious belief, other than to acknowlege it, and to confess that I do not share it. If I knew how to gain your belief, then I would share your belief. I do not.

From Frank O'Collins I have tried to figure out where religious belief finds people, or where people find religious belief. Many say to me that I must look in the Bible. I do, and there is much wisdom, and much contradiction, in THE Bible.

Many people have many views on many events. That event is significant for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the event involves one individual who is titled as The Pope.

The title, the position, the office, the seat, the authority, the whatever it is, in fact, is The Pope.

Who are the Jesuits?

I found the following in my study done yesterday (7-23-2014):

Quote___________________________
It was a common saying among many sensible men in Great Britain and Ireland, in the time of the war, that they doubted whether the great men of America, who had taken an active part in favor of independence, were influenced by pure patriotism; that it was not the love of their country they had so much at heart, as their own private, interest; that a thirst after dominion and power, and not to protect the oppressed from the oppressor, was the great operative principle that induced these men to oppose Britain so strenuously. This seemingly illiberal sentiment was, however, generally denied by the well-hearted and unsuspecting friends of American liberty in Europe, who could not suppose that men would engage in so noble a cause thro' such base motives. But alas! The truth of the sentiment is now indisputably confirmed; facts are stubborn things, and these set the matter beyond controversy. The new constitution and the conduct of its despotic advocates, show that these men's doubts were really well founded. Unparalleled duplicity! That men should oppose tyranny under a pretence of patriotism, that they might themselves become the tyrants. How does such villainy disgrace human nature! Ah, my fellow citizens, you have been strangely deceived indeed; when the wealthy of your own country assisted you to expel the foreign tyrant, only with a view to substitute themselves in his stead. . .
But the members of the Federal Convention were men w e been all tried in the field of action, say some; they have fought for American liberty. Then the more to their shame be it said; curse on the villain who protects virgin innocence only with a view that he may himself become the ravisher; so that if the assertion were true, it only turns to their disgrace; but as it happens it is not truth, or at least only so in part. This was a scheme taken by the despots and their sycophants to bias the public mind in favor of the constitution. For the convention was composed of a variety of characters: ambitious men, Jesuits, tories, lawyers, etc., formed the majority, whose similitude to each other, consisted only in their determination to lord it over their fellow citizens; like the rays that converging from every direction meet in a point, their sentiments and deliberations concentered in tyranny alone; they were unanimous in forming a government that should raise the fortunes and respectability of the well born few, and oppress the plebeians.

PHILADELPHIENSIS
_________________________________________

That is a newspaper "letter to the editor" written (or said to be written) before RATification of the so called Constitution of the United States of America.

So far as I can tell the Jesuits were inspired during those times and places that became known as The Inquisition and The Crusades.

So...do you speak of such things as The Inquisition and The Crusades when you speak of a spiritual war against good and evil, or am I entirely clueless as to what is precisely your viewpoint without me getting the wrong message by some measurable degree?

I can simply ask, I suppose, what is measurable as a spiritual war against good and evil?

If I ask Jesus, or God, to clue me in on my dilemma concerning those extortion payments, and there is no answer, or I have to imagine the many possible answers that might be sent to me, and then I have to pick the answer from the many answers that might be sent to me from Jesus or God, then does that mean that I am a lost soul according to what you know?

Example:

"If it is true liberty you seek, it can only be found in Christ."

True Liberty to me is accurate accountability. I seek accurate accountability. I've heard from some people this message that I can find things in Christ, in so many words, and yet the accurate account, as far as I know so far, is me asking, and me not getting answers from Christ.

Here I am.

There is Christ.

So far the connections to me from Christ are people who advise me to find Christ.

Here I am.

Here are people letting me know that Christ is worth finding.

Here is Christ.

What has not happened yet is me finding Christ according to the people who let me know that Christ is worth finding.

For all I really know, as far as accurate accounting goes, Christ found me, and I found Christ, and all those people advising me to find Christ are simply not seeing the connection, including me, including me not seeing the connection.

I'm not exactly clear of the meaning of your last statement. Are you saying that you have accepted Him or not? I thought your picture of the pope's dove being attacked was rather humorous and I do think God does have a sense of humor too. The Pope has very little to do with Christ and maybe God was just making a little point there. He has a funny way of doing that sometimes. Christ has very little to do with religion as well, for that is mostly made up of man's laws and not God's. I can tell you Josf that I think it is no coincidence that so many people have led you to Him, he most always seeks us out first. I can also tell you that many of your qualities are those that come directly from God: extreme aversion to injustice and evil and a strong desire for that which is good, honest and fair. If you do not yet know Christ and find contradictions in the Bible all you need to do is tell Him you want to know and understand Him and ask for wisdom, which He freely gives to those with a genuine desire to learn and know Him. Before I came to accept Christ I felt much the same way you do and had a hard time reconciling what I also thought to be contradictions, but after I chose to accept Him and take Him at His word He opened my eyes to so many things which I could never see before (once was blind, but now I see) and every single day I learn more and my love for Him with it. Knock and He shall answer, seek and you shall find. It was seeing true, real, palatable evil in this world that also opened my eyes to God and I pray it can do the same for you.

As a side note, I do not think that because one believes in God that one should then stop fighting against evil, in fact I think the opposite is true, but I also believe without God's intervention there is little hope in stemming the tide of evil as well as comfort in knowing that no matter which way it goes, you will have the certainty of one day living in a world where evil will no longer be allowed, and that brings true Peace. I wish you peace my friend.

One final comment, the Jesuits are not of Christ, nor do they do His will, they just made a play on His name, probably as a vain attempt to attach Him to their wickedness.

"If you do not yet know Christ and find contradictions in the Bible all you need to do is tell Him you want to know and understand Him and ask for wisdom, which He freely gives to those with a genuine desire to learn and know Him."

The viewpoint you have of Him, expressed in words, is to me a foreign viewpoint, as far as I can tell. I don't know that the creator of all is a Him, so that explains, in words, some of the differences in viewpoints.

"I'm not exactly clear of the meaning of your last statement. Are you saying that you have accepted Him or not?"

I do not know what you mean by the words "accepted Him," as explained above the concept of me knowing what is, or is not, the creator is foreign to me, so I don't know that the creator is a Him.

"Knock and He shall answer, seek and you shall find."

I can write volumes of text in the vain attempt to record every time I have this idea that the creator of all is sending me messages. Just last night, for example, there were these obvious coincidences that cannot be explained rationally, and of what use would it be for me to explain precisely why I see these things the way I see them?

At no time have I assumed that the creator is a Him because at no time have I understood the coincidences (beyond possible odds of randomness as far as I know) as a message that says to me, "Hi, I am a Him, and I am Him speaking to you with these messages," and so I look for such things, but such things do not reach me.

Should I stop looking?

Should I stop asking?

If you say all I have to do is ask, and then I do not get an answer, then there is an accurately measurable problem.

It is possible that I am not honest with myself, as I know, once someone is successful in lying to themselves, there is no turning back, success is what it is, success is not failure.

I don't, as a rule, work at lying to myself, as far as I know, so a measure of trying can be understood as self deception when I see myself "rationalizing" things that I do that are destructive. I think I can still see when I am "rationalizing" wrong actions that I want to do, even though I know that my actions are measurably destructive. Part of this process is in some way explained with this concept of "Jesus dying for our sins," if I can be so bold as to begin to understand that message in some Bibles, and that message offered by some people who speak of the messages in some Bibles.

Does that make sense?

"As a side note, I do not think that because one believes in God that one should then stop fighting against evil, in fact I think the opposite is true, but I also believe without God's intervention there is little hope in stemming the tide of evil as well as comfort in knowing that no matter which way it goes, you will have the certainty of one day living in a world where evil will no longer be allowed, and that brings true Peace."

I think long sentences are good, when they are well constructed. Thanks, I see so much to agree with, and little to disagree with in your welcome words.

Count me as someone who would like to believe all the words in The Bible are words from the creator, and none of the creations have dishonestly altered the message.

Please try to consider the possibility that I am not claiming that your beliefs are wrong. Please try to consider the possibility that I am not claiming that the words in the Bible are lies.

Which Bible?

Which words?

Who put the words in print?

Is it possible that someone, a creation of the creator, misread and then mistranslated the intended message?

Those are not statements of facts, those are questions that have not yet been answered as far as my ability to know, and understand, the messages that I receive as answers to those questions.

I do not claim that Jesus is not the son of God.

How could I make such a claim?

There is no evidence I can find that confirms, to me, in my ability to know, one way or the other as to what Jesus was, is, or will be, in time and place; therefore it is accurate, and honest, for me to deny anyone who claims that I claim that Jesus is not the son of God.

I cannot make such a claim without lying. If I make such a claim, then I am lying. If someone claims that I make such a claim, then what does that mean as far as they are concerned?

measure of hope, Josf, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me. No, I don't believe you should ever stop asking or seeking. The Creator I refer to is the one who is in the Holy Bible, where He clearly identifies Himself as a Him. I understand your point that there are many different views on who/what is creator, or whether in fact there is one at all; however, as in all matters there can only be one truth. Any one of these being proven as true by necessity makes all the others false. Proof is the stumbling block. Without proof how can a thing be true? But proof many times is in the eye of the beholder. The evolutionist claim there is proof that my ancestors were monkeys. I think their proof fails the test. The flaw of science is that it assumes that there is nothing which exists outside of that which can be observed, yet despite this assumption it adamantly insists to be true that which no one has ever observed. It's really is a matter of assumptions (which are a kind of faith), yet, assumptions are just that and if they later prove not to be true, the whole thing collapses. Science has found it's assumptions to be false on more than one occasion.

In my experience, there is proof of God's existence so vast that I no longer question it at all. But proof for me is not necessarily proof for another. That is something which must be experienced individually and cannot be given by words alone, at least in most instances. There have been occasion when God has provided dramatic proof to large numbers of people which cannot be denied (ie. rising from the dead), but those cases are admittedly rare.

I have found that there is somewhat of a paradox which exists in experiencing real proof of God's existence and that is if one wants proof of God's existence one must first approach Him in humility and faith, if even only the smallest bit (the size of a mustard seed, for example). I think it matters to God that He is taken at His Word. You also must recognize your helpless bondage to sin and recognize that you can't fix this problem on your own. God is in the business of helping people who recognize they cannot help themselves, especially in the areas of sin and death.

I also believe that the Creator of all things would be capable of keeping His written word intact, outside of human contamination. He is no stranger to the deceptive tendency of man and I feel quite confident in His ability to keep His Word uncorrupted. I have read the Bible numerous times and am convinced it could not possibly be the work of mere men. It is a tapestry beautifully woven, string by string from beginning to end and it's cohesion and message are flawless. This was something I could not see clearly; however, before I believed. Faith is the thing which makes blind men see.

It sounds to me Josf, that God has been making his presence known to you, if even only in the most subtle ways. God doesn't usually make His presence known with verbal announcements of "Hi, it's me", that's just not His way, but for those who keep their eyes and hearts open to Him he indeed will make His presence known. I will keep you in my prayers Josf and hope that one day you recognize yourself as a son of God. :)

I think that people ought to help each other as best as they can; so thanks for your kind words, and encouragement.

There is a problem I see in your words, perhaps it is just me.

"The flaw of science is that it assumes that there is nothing which exists outside of that which can be observed, yet despite this assumption it adamantly insists to be true that which no one has ever observed."

Science is a method of asking and answering questions; if there is a flaw then the scientific method can be used in finding the flaw.

Science can't be the flaw, as far as I know, as I consider science alone, with no one, no people, to use it, or lose it.

Someone tries out a method of asking and answering questions, and then someone fails.

that I'm blaming science, just making note of it's limitations. Science can only test that which can be observed and it makes the assumption therefore, that there is nothing which exists that is not observable in some way (i.e. it denies the possibility of anything "supernatural" simply because it cannot observe it or test it). In my opinion, it is the height of arrogance to make the blanket assumption that nothing exists which science can't explain by observation and testing. I also think it is both foolish and arrogant for science to decry the existence of a Creator while it is still "scratching its head" as to how and by what effect the universe came into existence. It has plenty of guesses and hypotheses, but both of those thing are far from proven fact. In short, science has in no way proven the non-existence of a creator; therefore, it should not take such a solid stance against the possibility of there being one and when it does, to me, that is more about agenda and personal bias than that which has been proven or disproven.

If you have a meaning of the word science that works for you and I have a meaning of the word science that works for me are the meanings agreeable or are two people finding agreement as to their meanings that work for them?

I ask that because the meaning of the word science, as I use that meaning, is not the same meaning of the word science that your words appear to me as the meaning you use for the word science.

Example:

"Science can only test that which can be observed and it makes the assumption therefore, that there is nothing which exists that is not observable in some way (i.e. it denies the possibility of anything "supernatural" simply because it cannot observe it or test it)."

I think that people test things that people observe, and if the scientific method is used by people, then people use a feedback loop of testing, retesting, and retesting, as test results either stay the same or test results change over time.

If test results stay the same then people can gain some confidence in the results of the test. If the test results change, then that information feeding back to the people doing the testing are going to be in a position to lose confidence in their conclusions that they may make concerning the expected results of the test.

Those are a lot of words offered as I try to explain the differences between the way I see science as a useful method, and the way you see science as you see it (at least as far as I can understand how you see science based upon the words you offer).

"...there is nothing which exists that is not observable in some way..."

That sounds like something said by someone who claims to speak the truth; but that does not sound like someone speaking about science.

How can someone who claims to speak the truth support such a claim if there is no way to support such a claim?

There is no use for the scientific method when there is nothing to work on.

Example:

I can claim that nothing is something. My claim is based on this idea that the first thing, the creator of everything, exists after there was nothing.

Before anything, even God, there was nothing.

God is therefore the second thing.

How can I test that?

I can't. So that is not science.

I have to go now. I want to finish your offer of words asap.

Example 2:

"In my opinion, it is the height of arrogance to make the blanket assumption that nothing exists which science can't explain by observation and testing."

Someone using science (a method) can use science.

Someone using arrogance (a different thing than science) can use arrogance.

How can I use the scientific method to test the validity of a claim?

An example claim:

"Nothing exists which science can't explain by observation and testing."

How many nothings exist in places and at times where people can't observe these nothings, and where people cannot test these nothings that people can't observe in time and place?

There is no way to count them, so as far as people know, logically (not scientifically) there can be in infinite number of nothings hiding from people.

Science can't be used to observe that which people cannot observe. Logic, on the other hand, can be used to assume one of two things:

1. If I close my eyes everything that was is no more, and when I open my eyes everything that wasn't returns.

2. Before there were people to observe things there were things.

Number 1 above can be tested by people using the scientific method.

A scientist might hypothesis that number 1 is true, so scientist designs a test this way:

Close my eyes and pretend to run, but obviously there is nothing to run upon, so the running is only pretending to run.

The test is done on the curb, facing traffic, at a busy street with fast cars and trucks zooming in 4 lanes and two directions.

2.Before there were people to observe things there were things.

I don't know how to design a test that involves an observer living today going back in time before people existed.

I don't know how to prove when the first person existed.

So I don't even know when people didn't exist.

I do know that science did not exist until someone tested some idea for validity, and then science only existed as a method of testing an idea.

Science, as far as I know, cannot test anything.

As far as I know a hammer cannot hammer nails into boards.

"Nothing exists which science can't explain by observation and testing."

I don't know any scientists making such a claim. If you know one, then that one may be able to explain why that one made that claim.

"I also think it is both foolish and arrogant for science to decry the existence of a Creator while it is still "scratching its head" as to how and by what effect the universe came into existence."

How does science decry? That makes no sense to me. People can decry. Science cannot decry.

People scratch their heads.

People have ideas concerning what existed well before people existed to a capacity to leave evidence for other people to find whereby those people finding the evidence have the evidence of people having existed in the past.

"It has plenty of guesses and hypotheses, but both of those thing are far from proven fact."

I don't know how to find it to ask it if it thinks these things that you say it thinks.

"In short, science has in no way proven the non-existence of a creator; therefore, it should not take such a solid stance against the possibility of there being one and when it does, to me, that is more about agenda and personal bias than that which has been proven or disproven."

People have made claims as to what people can or cannot do in the past, and many of those claims have been proven to be false.

I don't know who these science people are who may or may not prove anything, including the existence of a or the creator, so I can't ask them if they think the things that you say they think, or why that take a stand on anything, having an agenda, or a bias, so I can ask if you know one.

Do you know someone making such a stand on bias?

If I can ask one of those people why they take such a stand, then I can see if that one is using the scientific method to make that stand, at least as far as I understand how the scientific works.

when I am using the term science as a thing (which decries something) I am speaking generally about the scientific community as it exists today. Are you disagreeing that the scientific community today takes the stance that there is no creator (simply because he cannot be observed). It has been my experience that the vast majority of scientists today are taught to and ultimately work under the assumption that there is no creator and everything which exists today on earth and throughout the universe came about from some naturalistic means, albeit they haven't yet determined what those means are. I am pointing out the absurdity of the scientific communities stance that there is no creator (despite no proof to the contrary) all the while they themselves work under their own assumptions (nothing exists which cannot be observed) which could very well be false. Just insert the term "scientific community" where I am speaking of a stance being taken. Obviously I understand the scientific method is simply a process which has no bias either way. It is the scientific community which wields it that operates under the assumption that nothing exists which cannot be observed and tested and I think that that assumption cannot and should not be made unless one knows everything there is to know, which of course no person does.

Also, if you were to take the creator at his word, he always existed and there was never a time before him that nothing existed because he always has. I personally don't find that any harder to accept than the notion that there was a "big bang" that magically created everything from nothing. As far as the scientific community goes, I don't think they should take a hard stance for or against anything that hasn't been proven or disproven because to do so would be to have a stance based on either agenda or personal bias.

Clarification helps a lot, but so does accurate accounting. When you report words spoken by people who speak false words, or speak nonsense, then you are not speaking about people who make up a scientific community, you are reporting words spoken by people who make up a nonsense community.

Where do you think all the lies in falsehood originate? If it is only one person, or one thing, spewing out every single lie, then a name can be placed upon that one.

Call the one who spews forth all (every single one) the lies the Deceiver, and I can certainly agree with that claim if that claim agrees with the available evidence supporting that claim. If one bit of evidence challenges that claim, as a false claim, then what would such a bit of evidence look like?

How about so called President Bush and so called President Obama both speaking at an event and they are speaking from reports they get from what they call the scientific community; and suppose both of them say things that are obviously false.

Now there are three possible sources of falsehood, not just one possible sources of falsehood.

When a label is attached to something, such as a so called scientific community, there are ways to figure out what that thing is, by what evidence originates from within that thing.

That thing may not be what people claim that the thing is, when basing what it is on what it actually does, and when basing what it is on the effect of what it actually does to other people who are not in that thing, when the evidence suggests the thing is criminal, then the thing may actually be criminal, so why call it a scientific community if it isn't a scientific community?

Why call it a scientific community if it is a bunch of criminals telling tall tales to keep their victims in the dark, weak, and ever willing to give up everything of any value, including their innocence, to the criminals?

I think that your claims, repeated, are false. I am not claiming that you are lying. I am claiming that your claims are false. There is a difference. If you merely repeat a lie, then you are transferring information, which you may or may not know about the accuracy of the information. If you know the information is a lie, and you transfer the information without warning people that the information is a lie, then you are in that way also lying. If you transfer the information not knowing that the information is a lie, then you can't be lying, no more than you can be lying when saying that the color blue is colorful.

If someone says to you, hey, that information is not true, and you then say why, and then someone says it is not true for this reason, then you can retract the information, and you too can begin to warn people about the information since now you know the information is false.

Example:

"I am pointing out the absurdity of the scientific communities stance that there is no creator (despite no proof to the contrary) all the while they themselves work under their own assumptions (nothing exists which cannot be observed) which could very well be false."

I think that the above is false. I don't know the facts. I just believe that the above is false.

Here is some evidence:

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

That suggests to me that some of the scientists are finding out through their study that God is observed and God exists as proven by the measurable, observable, facts.

I don't know, but I believe, that to be true.

You believe otherwise, or at least that is what your words report.

These words:

"I am pointing out the absurdity of the scientific communities stance that there is no creator (despite no proof to the contrary) all the while they themselves work under their own assumptions (nothing exists which cannot be observed) which could very well be false."

I think (I believe) that those words above are false.

Who is correct? You, or me? Can we both be correct? Can we both be incorrect? We are, obviously, reporting opposite observations.

Your words claim that God cannot be observed because the scientific community (so called) has not observed God, in so many words. I can be misunderstanding your words too.

My claim is that evidence exists that people in the scientific community observe God, so God exists according to the scientific community.

What is the truth in this case?

1. You are reporting the facts = true

2. I am reporting the facts = true

3. Neither one of us is reporting the facts = not true

4. Both of us are reporting the facts = true

5. One of us is lying = lies not merely reports of falsehood

6. Both of us are lying = a contest like the liars club

7. Both of us are merely repeating lies we have been told = not lying ourselves, we are merely in the dark still

8. Both of us are very close to God and we are working as best as we can to expose the liars for their lies so as to help other people who may need help in accurately identifying the liars as liars, so that fewer people are living lives directed by willful deceptions told by very well paid liars.

"Obviously I understand the scientific method is simply a process which has no bias either way."

When I type, my work is typically aiming toward gaining accuracy in wording.

Discrediting ALL people in the scientific community can be the unintended consequences of speaking in a language that does not maintain a minimum level of accuracy in wording.

I have tried to demonstrate that with one quote from one of the people who may, or may not, be in the so called scientific community. That one who is quoted with those words is no longer alive, so discredit, or credit, does not affect that one in living form.

I can point to two people living who may, or may not be, within this scientific community, and discredit, or credit, for their words is due to them based upon the facts, not based upon their close proximity to other people in the so called scientific community.

I do not know if that last paragraph makes sense to you, or anyone, but I believe that it makes sense to some other people, and I believe that it does not make sense to some other people.

"It is the scientific community which wields it that operates under the assumption that nothing exists which cannot be observed and tested and I think that that assumption cannot and should not be made unless one knows everything there is to know, which of course no person does."

Again, I do not know of anyone, in or out of the scientific community, that operates under the assumption that nothing exists which cannot be observed and tested, unless a child closing their eyes to make their parents disappear counts as someone in the scientific community; or outside of it.

"Also, if you were to take the creator at his word, he always existed and there was never a time before him that nothing existed because he always has."

God never told me such a thing, so I can't comment on those words that were told to you by God, through whatever counts as the word of God in your belief. In other words; the subject has changed from what people in the scientific community thinks, and what is, or is not, messages from God to someone in, or out of, any group of people.

1. Specific things claimed by specific people within a group called the scientific community.

2. God offering messages to specific people in the group of people who get specific messages from God.

If the subject of discussion is the first one, then I have yet to actually connect one individual to the claim offered.

If the subject of discussion is the second one, then I have yet to be offered that message to me, from God.

"I personally don't find that any harder to accept than the notion that there was a "big bang" that magically created everything from nothing."

I do not have enough information to conclude anything about what happened so many years ago, so my ignorance is not inspiring me to speak authoritatively either way.

When I think about such things, having no actual evidence to go by, my thinking is such that nothing is one thing. I think that because my understanding of God is such that God keeps everything created out of nothing. If there is no God, then there is nothing created, and nothing kept in creation, and therefore there is only one thing, not two things.

One thing is nothing; absolutely only one thing ever.

God makes sure that there are at least two things.

My thinking process is very limited, and so someone claiming that God said that God always existed is hard to imagine, again since my thinking process is very limited, and within my limits of thinking I think that God must have been very lonely for some time before God created that third thing.

1. Nothing is one thing.

2. God is the second thing.

3. God creates something other than 1 and 2.

What is the first thing Created by God; according to God, as far as you know, and as far as you are willing to believe at this time?

"As far as the scientific community goes, I don't think they should take a hard stance for or against anything that hasn't been proven or disproven because to do so would be to have a stance based on either agenda or personal bias."

When you can quote someone who makes such a claim, then you will accurately identify someone who makes such a claim. If that individual making that claim also claims to be a member of a group, then that group includes someone who makes that claim.

Can that claim be proven valid in any way?

If it cannot be proven valid in any way, then that claim has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

and I would like to believe that choice #8 is the most accurate choice. I agree with your point that not everyone in the scientific community operates with the assumption that there is no creator and with an agenda to deceitfully claim proof of the non-existence of one. I also agree that people should be labeled accurately, that is if one is acting criminally or deceitfully, then they should be referred to as a criminal, whatever their profession may be.

I also do concede your point that there are scientists who operate purely in honest pursuit of the truth, whatever that may be, without predetermined biases. I have come across those shining gems myself (after a little digging) like those who have conceded the fact that the very existence of DNA has made intelligent design not only possible but quite probable, as well as many other recent scientific discoveries which suggest the same as you pointed out. My apologies to any scientists that I may have offended with my blanket statement.

Your point is also well taken that much of what one would call the "prevailing scientific community" does not consist of people with an honest pursuit for the truth but in fact has been corrupted by criminals with an agenda which includes the promulgation of propaganda and deceit, in much the same way as so many of our other institutions of government, media and education have. Unfortunately the later group has the soap box and isn't letting go of it any time soon. It brings to mind Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge". I do believe that their is a great Deceiver and he has always operated under the same m.o. and that is to rob people of knowledge, especially the knowledge of God.

I think to be accurate, there are three groups: 1. Those that call themselves scientists, but would be more accurately called criminals who willfully deceive to further an agenda; 2. Those that call themselves scientists who operate under group #1, not necessarily deceitfully, but ignorantly and 3. Those that call themselves scientists who think for themselves and operate without preconceived notions or agendas and work earnestly to learn the truth of a thing, whatever that may be or wherever it may lead them. In my experience, group #3 is currently in the minority.

I believe I referenced God in response to your earlier comment, that is, the God of the Bible. If one believes, as I do, that the Bible is the very Word of God, then I would use it's words as though they were God's. And of course you are free to agree or disagree per your own beliefs. One final comment on the topic though; if one believes in a Creator and that the Creator identifies and describes himself in a book called the Bible, that book indicates that God was never lonely because He has always existed as "triune", that is in three forms as Father, Son & Spirit, so He never was alone.

Thanks for your thoughts and responses, Josf. I really enjoy talking to you because you challenge me to think about every word that I say or write, and I am always looking to improve in both areas. You always remind me that each and every word we use should be carefully weighed for accuracy and I appreciate that very much. :)

The 3 main types of people who comprise a group called the scientific community include 2 types that are not the scientific community, and one type that is the scientific community.

False claims are made by false people, not people who make up a scientific community. One type can be shown how they stepped out of the scientific community and they will listen, the other type knows that they lie.

I think that is simple and easy to understand, even when it may be hard to prove to someone unwilling to know better.

The word play is interesting to me. This concept of intelligent design, whatever that means, to whoever uses that term, can be interesting because there are many interpretations.

DNA is measurable. Those who measure DNA can say, in words, that there is in the DNA an intelligence at work. Not a brain as the measurable source of intelligence, in that DNA, but the intelligence required to create a brain.

How does that type of viewpoint work in any scientific brain?

I can ask one, and I might get an answer from one scientific brain.

I might not.

As far as me and religion goes, I remember at about age 10, while my Aunt was sending us to Sunday School, I had an experience concerning my thinking at that time as to what I was taught at that time.

I, all alone, with no Aunt, or brother (5 brothers and 1 sister), or parent, or teacher, or man of God, or woman of God, just me, and just me at 10 years old, decided to speak to God and the Devil at the same time. I wanted to help them settle their differences because I was told that they were not getting along well.

That is how my mind still works for me when dealing with messages from God told to me by other people, through books, or just people offering their own viewpoints.

I prey, my way, or the way God tells me to prey, and I am listening carefully most of the time.

EDIT:
I pray, my way, or the way God tells me to pray, and I am listening carefully most of the time.

Starting with a very troubling discovery in the falsely labeled Anti-Federalist Papers Numbered 40.

Quote__________________________
It was a common saying among many sensible men in Great Britain and Ireland, in the time of the war, that they doubted whether the great men of America, who had taken an active part in favor of independence, were influenced by pure patriotism; that it was not the love of their country they had so much at heart, as their own private, interest; that a thirst after dominion and power, and not to protect the oppressed from the oppressor, was the great operative principle that induced these men to oppose Britain so strenuously. This seemingly illiberal sentiment was, however, generally denied by the well-hearted and unsuspecting friends of American liberty in Europe, who could not suppose that men would engage in so noble a cause thro' such base motives. But alas! The truth of the sentiment is now indisputably confirmed; facts are stubborn things, and these set the matter beyond controversy. The new constitution and the conduct of its despotic advocates, show that these men's doubts were really well founded. Unparalleled duplicity! That men should oppose tyranny under a pretence of patriotism, that they might themselves become the tyrants. How does such villainy disgrace human nature! Ah, my fellow citizens, you have been strangely deceived indeed; when the wealthy of your own country assisted you to expel the foreign tyrant, only with a view to substitute themselves in his stead. . .
But the members of the Federal Convention were men w e been all tried in the field of action, say some; they have fought for American liberty. Then the more to their shame be it said; curse on the villain who protects virgin innocence only with a view that he may himself become the ravisher; so that if the assertion were true, it only turns to their disgrace; but as it happens it is not truth, or at least only so in part. This was a scheme taken by the despots and their sycophants to bias the public mind in favor of the constitution. For the convention was composed of a variety of characters: ambitious men, Jesuits, tories, lawyers, etc., formed the majority, whose similitude to each other, consisted only in their determination to lord it over their fellow citizens; like the rays that converging from every direction meet in a point, their sentiments and deliberations concentered in tyranny alone; they were unanimous in forming a government that should raise the fortunes and respectability of the well born few, and oppress the plebeians.

PHILADELPHIENSIS
_________________________________________

A method of discovering the facts to then have facts with which to deliberate on questions of law can be used in this case. Find the names of the people who constituted the Continental Congress as they were the Federal government under The Articles of Confederation.

There is then three lists of names:

1. Those signing a Declaration of Independence

2. Those members of the Continental Congress

3. Those members usurping Liberty with their secretive, false, Con Con of 1787

Cut and pasted from the falsely named Anti-Federalist Paper number 40 (a) is:

I've read only about half of the text in the falsely named Anti-Federalist Papers but that reading has opened my eyes to many new understandings of what was actually happening during the time between declaring our duty as free people to defend each other against criminals who take over governments, in 1776, and then that criminal take over of our government in 1787.

There were a group of people called Quakers, for example, and they were pacifists, or conscientious objectors to the concept of violence used to gain anything. That type of driving principle is not the same as the driving principle driving ambitious men, Jesuits, tories, lawyers, etc., and so there are groups:

1. Patriots (those include over 10,000 patriots murdered by the Red Coats in so called prison ships, or "hospital" ships, and other extermination camps)

2. Quakers

3. Those who were on the side of the Patriots, but all they could do was be raped, or otherwise abused by the Red Coats, because they were ill equipped to violently defend themselves when that is the last option before being raped, or otherwise abused by the Red Coats.

4. Ambitions men (here the obvious list of names include those merchants working in collaboration with other merchants, and bankers, and politicians, whereby their trade is drug pushing, slave trading now called "human trafficking," money monopolization, and the criminalizing, cartelizing, monopolizing, of governments.)

The idea behind the study and employment of FACTS in the past (a.k.a. Accurate History) includes the often repeated practice of the criminals as the criminals create a pack of lies to replace the FACTS in the past, and therefore the necessity of discovering the FACTS in the past despite the very well worn practice of stealing the wealth of people so as to then feed people a pack of LIES that so happens to aid the criminals in the work of stealing the wealth of the people.

The criminals who take over MUST control the opposition. This is as simple as knowing how many bullies are active on the playground in kindergarten. Some kids figure it out. There is the teacher, a bully, then there is one of the big kids, and which one controls the opposition in time and place?

When the criminals take over there just so happens to be piles upon piles of corpses of dead people. How many names of dead people count up to 8,000 dead people, for example?

If one person spoke each name, in an effort to help communicate the salvation of souls, or whatever idea inspired someone to speak each name, how long would it take to speak each name?

How much time and effort was required to torture and murder each one?

No one asks vital questions? Not just here, but other places too?

When is it a good time to ask vital questions? When is a good time to insist upon accurate answers? Is anyone other than myself and my son, known to me, able to offer their experience in trial by jury?

From Trial by Jury (Essay by Lysander Spooner):

Quote________________
THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE THE JUSTICE OF THE LAWS.
_____________________

The work done by Lysander Spooner is very simple. The volumes of words, the walls of text, the profuse use of English language, reinforces the simple truth.

How about a confirmation on the precise meaning of justice, before going further into the work done by Lysander Spooner on Trial by Jury?

Quote______________________________
The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man’s legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: “To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.”

This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due.
________________________________________

So...

THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE THE JUSTICE OF THE LAWS.

The right of juries to judge the honesty of the laws.

That means that each individual member of the whole body of people has a duty to pay their dues, their tax payments, in the form of jury duty, and that is how each King makes sure that each other King is honest in time and place.

I know, I know, that is not how Lysander Spooner arranges the English symbols so as to convey the intended message intact - without distortion.

"...to live honestly..."

Two practical examples:

1. You sit on a jury and you try a case where Karen Hudes is blowing the whistle on the Jesuits and the New World Order as those two factions are now battling it out to see who owns everyone else on this planet.

2. You sit on a jury and you try a case where Walter Burien is blowing the whistle on the local Major in your town as the so called taxes collected in your town are funneled into a FUND used at the exclusive pleasure of a few people named in the secretive paper work documenting the actual flow of POWER on a NET basis - not a false BUDGET basis.

Who decides if Karen Hudes is off her rocker if she starts speaking about Alien races with elongated sculls?

If I am on the Jury, and you are on the Jury, then we may have a conflict of opinions on that point.

My point would be that it is entirely possible that Karen Hudes did see someone posing as an Alien with an elongated skull, and she bought into that charade because it looked real from her viewpoint at the time and place where that event took place. She was not able to seize the man posing as an Alien with an elongated skull, cut into the fake scull with a scalpel, or sharp knife, and expose the counterfeiting operation for all to see, including herself - as a possible explanation for that DIVERSION away from the actual case.

If the case were a case whereby NO ONE in their right mind would ever use fraudulent money as OUR money, then what Karen Hudes has to say on that subject might be worth checking out, to find the FACTS relevant to that case, as my offer to a fellow jurist, as we endeavor to do what?

THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE THE JUSTICE OF THE LAWS.

The law, so called, says pay the IRS an extortion payment, and the IRS demands FDRs, or Federal Reserve Notes as payment. Where does that POWER go? Does that POWER finance World War III so as to then cause Russia to do battle with Nato, so as then to allow the Central Banking Criminals to set up shop in Asia so as then to collect all the War DEBT accumulated during that crime in progress that has been a crime in progress since at least 1787 here in America?

THE RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE THE JUSTICE OF THE LAWS.

I am an actual jurist. I sat on an actual jury. So has my son. We the people have this experience in FACT.

That is the so called "official" Web Page for The Constitution where I look for the official version of the Bill of Rights. That has recently changed from the FACT it was, to the FACT it now is, and if you care to look, you can see a change in the numbering, done by someone, done in time and place in fact.

Quote (cut and pasted from that official web page):_______________________
Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
________________________________________________

That musical chairs effort to confound the Bill of Rights numbering was done after (coincidence?) a caller called in on the Monday Night National Liberty Alliance Conference Call to tell John Darash about the original copies (wet ink) and the significance of working with those original copies, including the Bill of Rights (numbering 12).

I took that with me to every meeting I've gone to where people in California met for National Liberty Alliance business. I've witnessed the "constituting" of Counties 3 times now, meetings in Riverside, Kern, and Temecula. I did not find occasions to share quotes in that book at those meetings.

The reason for that book to be delayed in printing had to do with a gag order placed upon the people attending the first Con Con. What type of people gags people?

Inside that book are copies of the Amendments to the Constitution . There are 12 Articles.

The book (at the beginning of the pages in the book) prints this:

Quote__________________
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1838, by
WARNER W. GUY,
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia
______________________

1838 is after these events:

__________________________
1. 1787
The British return with a covert operation known as a Con Con in Philadelphia intending to re-Monopolize the 13 colonies into one central banking fraud and extortion wing, or satellite, of the Bank of England.

2. 1789
Judiciary Act, to nullify trial by jury, of the people, for the people, and by the people, replacing trial by jury with Admiralty (English) Courts under false names of supreme dictatorship.

3. 1790
Rhode Island RAT-ifies the criminal take over as the last independent republic to fall victim to the false advertizement campaign run by the criminals who called themselves The Federalist PARTY.

4. 1790
Naturalization Act, a cover up name for marking the names and whereabouts of the victims, a head count.

5. 1791
The First Fraudulent Central Bank Scheme of the United States, directly linking the satellite bank with the supposed "enemies" The British and the Bank of England

6. 1794
The new King Proclaims the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, a false name for conscripting an army of slaves to invade the former independent Republic of Pennsylvania to crush the spirit of Liberty, enforce a criminal tax, and end a money competition then gaining currency as whiskey.

7. 1798
Alien and Sedition Acts, the British influence (supposed Enemies) the second American King, another False Federalist named John Adams, to punish anyone daring to side with the French (those who aided the defeat of the English in the so called Revolutionary War), and anyone daring to criticize the False Federalist, criminal, take over, for the British Bank of England, by those False Federalists. This by the way is done despite the Bill of Rights and the 1st, 5th, and 7th Amendments.

8. 1798-1799
The Rebels (against the criminal British and their minions running the American take-over) gain the services of a former Federalist named Madison, and both Madison and Jefferson pen resolutions intending to re-establish a working Federal design to push back against the Monopoly, or Monarchy, established by the traitors with their Con Con and other crimes.

9. 1800
Jefferson, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, proponent of Federal government (labeled as an anti-federalist) is voted into the position of Monarch of America, foiling the plans of the False Federalists.

10. 1811
Jefferson, the true Federalists, end the First Criminal Fraud Bank, Central Bank, of the United (British) States (colonies).

11. 1812
Madison, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, former False Federalist, turning his coat from Red, back to Blue, is voted in as the second "anti-federalist" Monarch.

11. 1812
The British attack. The true Federalists defend.

12. 1816
The Second Criminal Central Banking Fraud, Satellite of The Bank of England is established in the British Colonies where the people still think they have a true Federation. Madison turns his coat once again.

13. 1833
Jackson, Democrat, no longer a Democrat - Republican, of course not, the enemies change color so often, KILLS the bank by fiat, so executive fiat, a benevolent dictator, ends the "private" fiat of Central Banking, severing again the connection to the Bank of England.

14. 1833 to 1861
Known as Wild Cat Banking there is in America a time in which free market banking contends with Central Banking, seeking dominance, seeking investors, as free market banking goes head to head with the criminal versions.
______________________________

Keep in mind, fellow jurists, a maxim of economics. No one in their right mind pays more for less. That means that banking, like computers or cell phones, improve over time as the people paying for these things FORCE the people who make these things to improve the quality of these things while the people who make these things are also FORCED to lower the cost of these things when COMPETITION is allowed to happen, and when MONOPOLY is not used to make people insane (out of their minds).

It is insane for people to use Federal Reserve Notes. Use of Federal Reserve Notes virtually ensures, it finances, World War III and the torturous, horrid, terrifying death of hundreds of millions of people so as to secure World Reserve Currency Power in either The New World Order or the Jesuits, or whoever else is in that criminal Market.

1.a
Quote___________________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
______________________________________

That explains FREE MARKET GOVERNMENT in a few words. FREE MARKET FORCES FORCE suppliers of government to supply every higher quality government at ever lower costs of government. The criminals go out of business when a working Federation works. That is abundantly clear in those falsely named Anti-federalist Papers; which include the END OF BLACK SLAVERY as FACT during the time when the Continental Congress people were the Federal Government under The Articles of Confederation; between 1776 and 1787. The Con Con Con Job (a.k.a The Constitution) reclaimed SLAVERY as a LEGAL PRACTICE in the damn document itself.

If not for the true Founders insisting upon a Bill of Rights (12 or 10?) there would no longer be any question as to the complete takeover by the human traffickers, drug pushers, rapists, torturers, murderers, and mass murderers. You know this, you know their inculpatory evidence that is in your face, the fraud money, the extortion payments, the piles upon piles of dead people that always pile up when the criminals take over, such as those 8,000 people listed by name murdered by the Red Coats and their Tories , their Layers, their Judges, their ambitious men.

So you know the fix, it is right there in that book, in those few words, where FREE MARKET GOVERNMENT, in the form of a working Federal Voluntary Union, fixed BLACK SLAVERY for one thing, and fixed Fraudulent Banking for another thing, in this place we call America.

1.b
Quote___________________________________
But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.
______________________________________

That is, as a mater of discoverable FACT, a confession. We the people earn our credit by our honest work. The criminals then claim that they own you. The criminals then claim that in order for their property to gain "credit" the criminals spend their fraudulent money at their pleasure, and they call that National Debt, and they send the bills to the people who earn credit by their honest industry.

That is a patented process. That is the same process used by the criminals in the time of Jesus. That is the same patented process used by the Communists.

If you can't see that, then I, and anyone like me, is going to have a hard time with YOU in a jury trial.

YOU are the problem in that case if WE are deciding a case in a Trial by Jury, because you are so damn ignorant.

I'm not sorry about it either. If YOU are so damn ignorant then it is your responsibility, accurately accountable to YOU, to stop being so damn ignorant.

What is at stake?

8,000 more Patriots piled into a ditch? Can you name each name, or is it much easier to just finance their torturous death? Work all year up to July, pay the extortion fee, with the fraud money, and then fiance the next pogrom. It won't be you in the hell on earth, so who cares?

Quote:_____________________________
First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
________________________________________

OK, jurists, if your damnable willful ignorance has infested your brain to the point where you salivate on command like Pavlov's dogs at the mention of the word socialism, then YOU are a modern day Torrie, and I'm not on YOUR RED COAT SIDE.

That small offer of words from Benjamin Tucker (publisher of LIBERTY MAGAZINE) explains all you need to know to see why the criminals must create Thesis (Socialism), Anti-Thesis (Capitalism), so as to end up with Synthesis (Central Banking Monopoly Fraud).

When FREE MARKET (capitalist government or private government) GOVERNMENT (socialist government or public government) works as proven by the Federal model between 1776 and 1787, the demand for public and private government is supplied by individual people working in groups in COMPETITION (non-aggressive, non-antagonistic competition = not the false might makes right version of competition involving crime as a tool) to supply the higher quality and lower cost product viz - the best Constitutional Republic that private money can buy VOLUNTARILY.

That is my version. The version offered by Benjamin Tucker is his version. If you can't see the simplicity of how capitalism does work when capitalism is actually working in an actual free market, without the Central Banking Fraud on top of it, then you won't understand these words:

"Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise."

When the criminals take over they steal everything worth stealing and then they use the stolen loot to steal more, and the obvious, accurately measurable, result of that is a lot of dead bodies, as that works like a sink being sunk by the rats on the ship, and each rat is then at each other rat's throat, as all productive capacity is used up in killing each other while the supplies of everything worth stealing dwindles down to nothing, like the remaining air as the ship sinks, and all the wet rats are then breathing water.

The criminals know this, so they know when to move of their ship they sink on purpose.

They don't care that there are piles of bodies floating down the river. They make money on that FACT.

You don't get it?

You still don't get it?

How about one jurist on one place at one time asking another jurist a question, a vital question, and then both jurists refuse all answers that are not competitive, in other words, we can make a list of 10 possible answers to the vital question, and then we these two people discover, deliberately, the one best possible answer out of the 10 we discover in due process of law?

Vital Questions (10 for a possible effort to find 1 best 1 out of 10):

1. If people work in America, creating wealth, is an accurately accountable amount of that wealth stolen and then used to finance World War III, so as to move POWER to Asia, where people in Asia will then be collecting WAR DEBT (so called) from people working in America?

2. If 1 is true, then can we the people in these Republics like California, and we the people in these Counties in California like San Bernardino, can we find those accurate accounts of those transfers of wealth flowing from we the people into that FUND that is then used to finance World War III?

3. If 2 is true, then are those accurate records those extortion payments known as Internal Revenue Service Tax Liabilities, and those payments that are known as Interest payments made to a Central Bank, such as The International Monetary FUND, whereby criminals are operating a counterfeiting racket, and therefore all so called "interest" payments and all so called "tax liabilities" are, in FACT, the accurate record of the incuplatory evidence proving the FACT, that people in America are financing their own demise, and those FACTS constitute our authority to know we have been had, in a big way.

4. If 3 is true, then can we the people help each other defend each other against any further damage?

5. If 4 is true, then can we the people use trial by jury because we the people want to defend ourselves?

6. If 5 is true, then can we the people use the Bill of Rights (original ink copy preferred) as evidence proving the FACT that people can use FACTS as their authority to defend each other?

7. If 6 is true, then can we the people use common law grand jury due process as a process that affords everyone LAW, including the criminals, as a defense against any crime whatsoever in time and in place?

8. If 7 is true, then can we the people randomly select 25 people in each county and with just 3 cases can we the people end the central banking fraud, the extortion racket, and the practice of following criminal orders without question, in each county, in each Republic, in this Federation that we work as a true Federation?

During a Monday Conference Call a caller spoke of the original wet ink document known as The Bill of Rights which were used to RAT-ify the so called Constitution hatched from the Secret Philadelphia Con Con (Dirty Compromise) of 1787.

I'm going to be more careful now, and I am going to find and link that Monday Conference Call, and I will quote the words.

"So are you familiar that the first original Bill of Rights had 12 Bills."

Setting aside the obvious problems associated with a National leader who thinks that the Anti-Federalsts and the Federalists worked on, and then created, The Constitution, which appears over and over again to be the idea planted in John Darash's head, which is patently absurd, and setting aside the problem of having no way to actually present "the pudding" to John Darash, since he is always too busy, and always interrupting, and resorting to insult as a form of communication, setting all that aside as minor difficulties, the events that have occurred since that Monday Conference Call include:

1. A change on the Official Constitution Web Page from listing 10 Amendments to listing 12 Articles.

2. The offer of information from Frank O'Collins (Australia and Ucadia) of American History including references to the Declaration of Independence, the slaughter of 10,000 patriots captured in the war known as The Revolutionary War, and the Constitution.

3. A discovery within the record of the 1787 Con Con in Philadelphia of the first 12 Amendments, where 11 and 12 are not the same as the Official Current Constitution Web Page version of the 12 articles of the Bill of Rights.

Why is this at all important?

The caller on that Monday Conference explained the importance of relying upon fact instead of relying upon FICTION.

If John Darash is operating under the idea that Federalists and Anti-Federalists, with their published Papers, were instrumental in writing the document known as The Constitution of 1787, then John Darash is relying upon a fiction that he alone appears to create by executive fiat, or who knows, as there may be someone, or some source of information, that inspires such a wild story of abject falsehood.

The reason why I am taking the time to write this now has to do with two pieces of the puzzle being fit into place as I catch up with the latest news from these two sources:

Quote:______________________________
To answer this, we need to look at what happened in the lead up to the stealing of the election of 1860 for Presidency when Wall Street, blatantly corrupted the ballots in one of the few openly conceded corrupt elections. After the Presidential election at the end of 1860, it was clear that nothing would stop Wall Street in declaring their candidate the winner, despite the fact his three other Presidential contenders being two democrats and one conservative effectively split the vote making it statistically impossible for Lincoln to get the necessary majority of electoral college votes.
____________________________________

So...what does John Darash, the vocal opponents of John Darash including William Taylor Reil, and Frank O'Collins have in common?

They all, apparently, think that The Constitution is an effort by good people to do good things, when the actual facts prove that it was a criminal take-over created out of a fraudulent meeting, which was then turned into secret proceedings, which then went into Public Notice as a promotion (as is) of a New World Order, or New Government, to replace the existing CONFEDERATION or FEDERATION of Constitutional Republics, whereby the falsely named Federalists (monarchists) sold the Fraud to an unsuspecting Public, despite the very well done whistle blowing efforts of the falsely named Anti-Federalists who tried desperately to warn the unsuspecting public at large of the crime in progress.

The falsely named Anti-Federalists Papers included warning offered to the people about the FACT that the Constitution virtually assured Civil War.

Where does the Bill of Rights fit in?

Remember, please, that the Official Web Page had published 10 Amendments on the Official Web Page for The Bill of Rights, and that was Published in that way for years. I've cut and pasted often from that Official Bill of Rights Web Page, and those Forum Posts are all over the Internet documented that as fact: the way it was up until the change that occurred since the 06-14-2014 NLA Monday Conference Call.

Before that NLA Monday Conference Call the Bill of Rights was 10 Amendments according to the Official Web Page.

I can cut and paste what is now Published, as I type this, to record this fact as fact:

quote_____________________________________
Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

While I was commenting on the Monday National Conference Call of 7-14-2014, where John Darash spreads a false version of American history, involving ONE delegate from New York, when actually there were 2, and while looking up the record left by the second delegate to the Con Con named Robert Yates, who is also probably the same BRUTUS penning the so called Anti-Federalist Papers, I found a copy of The Bill of Rights in that report by Robert Yates of the Secret Proceedings in the Con Con of 1787.

Is anyone, anywhere, on this planet, at all curious as to what were those 2 other Amendments of the original Bill of Rights?

1787 was the year the criminals took over, so the claim that 1913 was the time of death (of Liberty in America) is off by 126 years.

A quick run down of what happened in those 126 years:

1. 1787
The British return with a covert operation known as a Con Con in Philadelphia intending to re-Monopolize the 13 colonies into one central banking fraud and extortion wing, or satellite, of the Bank of England.

2. 1789
Judiciary Act, to nullify trial by jury, of the people, for the people, and by the people, replacing trial by jury with Admiralty (English) Courts under false names of supreme dictatorship.

3. 1790
Rhode Island RAT-ifies the criminal take over as the last independent republic to fall victim to the false advertizement campaign run by the criminals who called themselves The Federalist PARTY.

4. 1790
Naturalization Act, a cover up name for marking the names and whereabouts of the victims, a head count.

5. 1791
The First Fraudulent Central Bank Scheme of the United States, directly linking the satellite bank with the supposed "enemies" The British and the Bank of England

6. 1794
The new King Proclaims the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, a false name for conscripting an army of slaves to invade the former independent Republic of Pennsylvania to crush the spirit of Liberty, enforce a criminal tax, and end a money competition then gaining currency as whiskey.

7. 1798
Alien and Sedition Acts, the British influence (supposed Enemies) the second American King, another False Federalist named John Adams, to punish anyone daring to side with the French (those who aided the defeat of the English in the so called Revolutionary War), and anyone daring to criticize the False Federalist, criminal, take over, for the British Bank of England, by those False Federalists. This by the way is done despite the Bill of Rights and the 1st, 5th, and 7th Amendments.

8. 1798-1799
The Rebels (against the criminal British and their minions running the American take-over) gain the services of a former Federalist named Madison, and both Madison and Jefferson pen resolutions intending to re-establish a working Federal design to push back against the Monopoly, or Monarchy, established by the traitors with their Con Con and other crimes.

9. 1800
Jefferson, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, proponent of Federal government (labeled as an anti-federalist) is voted into the position of Monarch of America, foiling the plans of the False Federalists.

10. 1811
Jefferson, the true Federalists, end the First Criminal Fraud Bank, Central Bank, of the United (British) States (colonies).

11. 1812
Madison, a Democrat, a Republican, a Democrat-Republican, former False Federalist, turning his coat from Red, back to Blue, is voted in as the second "anti-federalist" Monarch.

11. 1812
The British attack. The true Federalists defend.

12. 1816
The Second Criminal Central Banking Fraud, Satellite of The Bank of England is established in the British Colonies where the people still think they have a true Federation. Madison turns his coat once again.

13. 1833
Jackson, Democrat, no longer a Democrat - Republican, of course not, the enemies change color so often, KILLS the bank by fiat, so executive fiat, a benevolent dictator, ends the "private" fiat of Central Banking, severing again the connection to the Bank of England.

14. 1833 to 1861
Known as Wild Cat Banking there is in America a time in which free market banking contends with Central Banking, seeking dominance, seeking investors, as free market banking goes head to head with the criminal versions.

15. 1861
Civil War, as if there will ever be in the records of people a more deceptive term, the criminals finance all sides in the effort to destroy all liberty, and all life sustaining capacity throughout America, in one giant pogrom. Where was the former Union (North and South) Gold kept at the start of the war?

16. 1863 - 1864
National Bank Act NORTH (where the gold was kept)

17. 1866
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

If the events of 1913 are knowable as a very significant power grab, as claimed, as acknowledge, then relatively speaking there are lists of events that can be compared to those events in 1913.

1787 The end of the Revolution and the British (Bank of England) wins.

1866 The end of any further notions of a Federation, no more questions on that point.

1913 The end of any further notions of prosperity; we are all slaves now according to those who claim to be our masters, not overtly, but covertly.

First Lie:
People need a few very intelligent money changers at the top of a financial pyramid scheme, for without these financial dictators offering their benevolent intelligence, no one can produce any credit worthy standing of any measure of any kind at all ever.

So...send your productive value (surplus wealth), the productive value you produce, into a FUND run by these criminals, and then these criminals will create the credit worthy standing of their fraudulent measures, as they buy things with the money you sent them, and they buy borrowers who then pay them even more surplus wealth in the form of National Interest.

So the first domino is a ponzi scheme based upon the lie that only these few money changers are able to create National Credit, and they print money on The Good Faith and Credit of the American People, while they claim that they are loaning money to people in America.

Now that is hard to believe, I know, as very few people can break down the lie they have planted in their brains on their own, and very few people can break down the lie they have planted in their brains with help, so that leaves very few people knowing right from wrong in this case of National Interest.

It is not that difficult to understand, as far as the workings of the lie, as the liars gain POWER from the believers who believe in the lie.

People who produce surplus wealth, are the people who earn good credit, and that includes anyone working at any productive employment of any kind, anywhere, those are the people who constitute The Good Faith and Credit of the American People, and it is those people who are loaning the POWER to print money to the lying criminals. Then the lying criminals claim that they are loaning money (that they borrowed) to the people who produce anything worth stealing.

You don't have to be a genius to figure this out, I know, because I am no genius, all I am is an old guy who stuck to my goal of figuring this out, and after decades of hard work the product, the fruits of my labor, is knowledge.

Here, next, are two offers of information from people who ought to know something worth knowing. I can link the source, and if the reader can separate the source of the information from the information long enough to employ the information on the face value of the information, then that zeroing in on the information alone, ought to help the reader decipher the lie, how the lie works, and therefore be in a position to work on an effective defense against the lie.

Here is an author of a book (linked) quoting from the first American, official, legal counterfeiter, a man maned Alexander Hamilton:

Quote__________________________
But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.
___________________________________________

That is the first American legal counterfeiter explaining the lie in lying words. What that criminal is actually saying is that We the Criminals will henceforth work diligently at convincing our victims of their need to send us their productive capacity so that We the Criminals can then loan that wealth back to our victims, and we will charge them interest on the principle.

So, that may be still hard to understand, but it isn't, all you have to know is that the principle (the loan) was stolen in the first place, so the interest (on the stolen principle), is simply an added rate of theft added to the original rate of theft.

The confession of the lie is right there in the quoted words of the liar. The same lie is told when liars say such things as "Read my lips, no new taxes." and that brings up the second lie lined up as dominoes.

Having established a legalized (fraud) counterfeiting system, which took many years to accomplish, from the First Bank of the United States, a Central Banking Fraud designed the same way all Central Banking Fraud Systems are designed, copied by the Communists by the way, then the Second Bank of the United States, and then the Federal Reserve System of Fraud, and then, up until just recently, The International Monetary FUND, and now there is a period of uncertainty as to where the criminals, and which criminals, will take over after World War III, most likely the World Reserve Currency Power will settle in Asia, after the criminals get done using up all the Cannon Fodder in Russia, Nato, and America.

So the second domino in this World Reserve Currency Crime stuff is Involuntary Taxation, and the reason for that domino being put in place has to do with the necessity of creating a demand for the fraudulent money. No one in their right mind would work all day to then be paid, for all that work all day, paid with used toilet paper, or paid with used condoms.

No way.

So the Involuntary Tax System of Extortion has to be the domino put in place to compliment the Central Banking Fraud System, and then all the workers are working to FIRST produce enough "money" to pay the Extortion fee, and then after working hard enough, long enough, to earn enough used sheets of toilet paper, and enough used condoms, collecting those used sheets of toilet paper, and those used condoms, to pay the bill handed to the productive people by the criminals running the Extortion racket, paying those "liabilities" off, first, paying that off first, then, after that bill is paid, then people work to create their own, real, credit worthy standing. Note: who pays liabilities, who has limited liabilities, who spends, buys, invests, those liabilities, and what do the spenders, buyers, investors, buy, exactly, precisely, if the idea is an accurate accounting?

They buy more fraud, more extortion, and much more aggressive, criminal, violence.

They buy world wars. You are invited to attend.

Without question.

When it all gets going as planned no one, or very few people, question the fact that everyone is working harder, and harder, to make less, and less, and they use used toilet paper, and used condoms, as their preferred money.

It is worse, of course, than used toilet paper, and used condoms, but the trick is to fool the victims into thinking that everyone must be using this fake money, and that trick is that combination of creating the demand for the fake money, claiming that everyone has to pay "Taxes" (extortion fees) with ONLY that ONE MONOPOLY MONEY.

Who would ever demand to be paid in used condoms? Who would ever demand to be paid with used toilet paper? Who would ever demand to be paid with drug pusher, drug soaked, guilt soaked, paper money? Who would ever demand to be paid with innocent blood soaked money?

No one in their right mind would demand that money without some criminal creating that demand with a working extortion racket whereby you must pay, and you must pay ONLY with that money soaked in that innocent blood.

So here is the explanation that may hit home for some few, very few, people:

Quote__________________
First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.
_____________________________________

The money is much worse than trading with used toilet paper and used condoms. The papers being used constitute inculpatory evidence of crimes so horrible as to leave trace evidence of drugs and blood on the fraudulent money.

At least if it were used toilet paper and used condoms the people using the money would know precisely what they were trading as the stink and the texture would clue the traders in on their trade. Here have some more, and how many people would be washing their hands after a days trading?

Quote________________________________
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
______________________________________

So there are the first two dominoes put in place by the criminals who take over our common defense, our government, our liberty, and so why is the third domino necessary?

Three, the third domino, ends up infected the minds of everyone when things really get going, as One, and Two, above make everyone so weak of mind, weak of spirit, weak of moral conscience, that the only thing left is everyone at everyone's throat like rats on a sinking ship that everyone sunk on their own, criminal, hamster wheel.

So...where does the violence come from?

I no longer have a book, it was loaned out, and in this book are words that I will describe in my own words. I can link the book, but I did not write down for my own use, the words in the book. The story line is my own, and you can see if it fits on your own.

Actually my copy may be a different book, and so my story line may not have been inspired by the words in the book linked above.

The story line has to do with a few sentences written in an old book where the author was describing a routine done by people upon people.

People were doing well settling in places where people already existed. Settlers were on the Frontier around Tennessee, and the value of the land was seen by some as a means by which a few people could profit greatly at the expense of many people, so a plan was devised to create a demand for special services.

These inventive people seeking enormous profits hired special people who specialized in slaughtering babies, or whatever works to terrorize people the most, and so these specialized mass murderers were then painted up as Indians, and these mercenaries, these specialists who are very good at mass murder, very good at slaughter, very good at terror, were then set to the task of slaughtering Settlers, so as to blame the Indians, so as to create the demand for these same people who would then offer their services in defense of the Settlers against the Indians.

Simple enough no?

There is this Indian Problem. There is a solution. Dress up as Indians, slaughter Settlers.

Done.

Blame the Indians.

Done.

Now offer services to Settlers, for a fee, not for free, to slaughter Indians.

Done.

No problem.

Who then owns the land? How much is it worth? Who buys into the scheme?

Who gained ownership of the land after the land was cleared of those savage Indians?

I'll give you a hint:

1.
Central Banking Frauds
2.
Tax Fraud or Extortion Collectors
3.
Regular old people who fail to see what really happens when 1 and 2 above get going in a big way.

Who sold the land to who once the Indian Problem was solved in the usual Final Solution done by the usual types who usually use The Final Solution?

So...someone has to pony up to become those who do the slaughtering.

Why are there so many suicides recorded officially, or covered up officially, when people are trained to specialize in defense of Liberty, and instead of defense of Liberty those specialists are ordered to slaughter innocent people who happen to be existing on the land that the criminals want so desperately?

"Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. (One account reports Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired at the civilians, but Thompson later said he did not remember having done so.) He put himself between Calley's men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother. "

I pick that quote for effect, but there is a sentence that says more, perhaps, with fewer words:

"Some refused, others obeyed."

So the concept with Case 3, added to Case 2, added to Case 1 is not that difficult to understand.

Those who refuse to obey criminals orders are on our side, so we the people can defend them.

If we do not, then the blood is on our hands too, and no amount of washing will reach the goal of innocence, in fact, the washing business is the problem, like fornicating our way back to virginity.

I hope that helps.

By the way, to all those whose comments amount to TL;DNR, these offers of mine are not gifts, they are road blocks, depending upon your point of view. If it looks like work, smells like work, then it probably is work.

Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer